R v S, PC

In the case of R v S, PC, the appellant faced convictions for three counts of indecent assault and one count of gross indecency. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had engaged in a series of sexual acts with the complainant, including uncharged acts. Additionally, the complainant testified that the appellant had arranged for professional photographs to be taken of her in the nude, purportedly to document the changes in her body during puberty. The defence argued that the evidence of the photographs suggested an innocent purpose and requested that the jury not use this evidence for any other purpose. Conversely, the prosecution contended that the photographs indicated a sexual interest in young boys on the part of the appellant.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the admissibility and proper use of the evidence regarding the photographs. Specifically, the court needed to address whether the jury could consider this evidence to infer a general propensity of the appellant to commit offences against young boys. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether any misdirection by the trial judge warranted a retrial.

The court found that the trial judge did not sufficiently warn the jury that the evidence of the photographs could not be used to infer a general propensity to commit offences against young boys. The court emphasised that such evidence could only be considered if it established a particular sexual interest in the complainant. Given that the trial judge's summing up left it open to the jury to use the evidence for general propensity reasoning, the court concluded that this constituted a misdirection. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a retrial was ordered.