||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 299 (May)
||Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Dyson LJ, David Clarke J and the Recorder of Newcastle
||Adrian Chaplin (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
||Kim Preston (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
||19 May 2005
Criminal evidence and procedure - Evidence - Similar fact evidence - Admissibility - Appellate courts' approach when reviewing trial judges' decisions to admit similar fact evidence in borderline cases.
Where an appellate court was reviewing a trial judge's exercise of judgment as to whether similar fact evidence should be admitted in borderline circumstances, which was ultimately a question of degree, all due deference would be paid to the trial judge's view. In the instant case, which the trial judge had properly described as being a borderline case and which involved only one previous incident, although a different judge might have reached a different conclusion, paying due deference to the trial judge's decision, she had been entitled to conclude that the similar fact threshold had been met.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary