R v UB

The case of R v UB involved the appellant being charged with a series of serious sexual offences against children. These included maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16, indecent treatment of children under 12 in care, rape, and indecent treatment of children under 16 in care. After a trial, the appellant was found guilty by a jury on all counts. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning the admissibility and use of evidence of uncharged sexual acts were inadequate and erroneous. Specifically, the court examined whether the trial judge should have included a warning against propensity reasoning regarding this evidence and whether the directions led the jury to potentially convict the appellant based on the uncharged acts if they had doubts about the specific offences.

The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were indeed inadequate and wrong in law. The judge failed to include any warning against propensity reasoning regarding the evidence of the uncharged acts. Furthermore, the judge's direction that if the jury had any doubt about the specific offences, they should convict the appellant based on the uncharged acts, was problematic. This direction risked leading the jury to convict the appellant on the basis of the uncharged acts rather than the charged offences. The court found that these errors could have materially affected the outcome of the trial. As a result, the court concluded that the directions to the jury were inadequate and led to a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed.