Evidence Collection In Sexual Offences
Evidence Collection in Sexual Offences
✅ Key Legal Principles:
Prompt Reporting – delays in reporting may be relevant, but do not automatically discredit the victim.
Corroboration Not Required – under UK law, sexual offence convictions can rest on the complainant’s evidence alone.
Forensic & DNA Evidence – often used to support or contradict testimonies.
Section 41, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 – restricts evidence about the complainant’s previous sexual behaviour.
Special Measures – used to protect vulnerable witnesses during trial (e.g., video interviews, screens).
📚 Landmark Cases
🔹 1. R v. Makanjuola & R v. Easton [1995] 1 WLR 1348
Facts:
Both cases involved sexual offences where the primary evidence was the complainant’s testimony.
Legal Issue:
Should judges warn juries that it's dangerous to convict without corroboration?
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal ruled that a corroboration warning is not required by law in sexual offence cases. Judges may give a warning if there is reason to question credibility, but not automatically.
Key Principle:
➡ Corroboration is not a legal necessity — but the jury must assess credibility carefully.
🔹 2. R v. A (Complainant's Sexual History) [2001] UKHL 25
Facts:
The defendant wanted to introduce evidence of a prior sexual relationship with the complainant.
Legal Issue:
Was excluding this evidence under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 a breach of the defendant’s fair trial rights?
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that in exceptional cases, prior sexual history can be admitted if it’s relevant and necessary for a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR).
Key Principle:
➡ Section 41 restricts sexual history evidence, but courts can allow it if justice demands it.
🔹 3. R v. C [1992] 2 All ER 552
Facts:
Accused was convicted of raping a girl with learning disabilities. Defence challenged her ability to give reliable evidence.
Legal Issue:
Is the evidence of vulnerable complainants sufficient without corroboration?
Judgment:
Yes — the court confirmed that vulnerable witnesses can give valid evidence, and juries should assess it like any other testimony.
Key Principle:
➡ Vulnerable witnesses’ testimony is admissible and sufficient if credible.
🔹 4. R v. H (Minors) [1995] 2 Cr App R 328
Facts:
Two teenage boys accused of sexual assault; evidence included video interviews of the child victim.
Legal Issue:
Can pre-recorded interviews be used as primary evidence?
Judgment:
Yes — courts ruled video evidence is admissible, especially when used alongside special measures.
Key Principle:
➡ Video-recorded statements are valid evidence, especially to protect young victims.
🔹 5. R v. Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804
Facts:
Issue of consent when the complainant was intoxicated. The defence claimed there was no clear refusal.
Legal Issue:
How does intoxication affect consent?
Judgment:
The court clarified: a person can consent when drunk, but if they lose capacity, then any sexual activity is non-consensual.
Key Principle:
➡ Capacity to consent is key — intoxicated consent is valid unless capacity is lost.
🔹 6. R v. T [2004] EWCA Crim 316
Facts:
Sexual offence case where DNA evidence did not match the defendant, but the complainant was certain of identity.
Legal Issue:
How should forensic evidence be weighed against testimony?
Judgment:
While forensic evidence is powerful, victim testimony can outweigh DNA inconsistencies in some cases, especially if evidence is not conclusive.
Key Principle:
➡ DNA is strong but not infallible — context and credibility still matter.
🔹 7. R v. Hester [1973] AC 296
(Though older, still cited)
Facts:
The issue was whether fresh complaints to third parties shortly after the offence can be used as evidence.
Legal Issue:
Are “recent complaints” admissible?
Judgment:
Yes — they can support credibility, not prove the offence.
Key Principle:
➡ Early disclosure (e.g., telling someone soon after the event) may support credibility.
⚖️ Summary Table
| Case | Legal Issue | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Makanjuola (1995) | Corroboration | Not required — jury must weigh credibility |
| R v. A (2001) | Sexual history | Section 41 restricts it; can be admitted in rare cases |
| R v. C (1992) | Vulnerable witnesses | Their evidence is valid and must be judged like any other |
| R v. H (Minors) (1995) | Video evidence | Video statements from victims are admissible |
| R v. Bree (2007) | Intoxicated consent | Consent valid unless capacity lost |
| R v. T (2004) | DNA vs testimony | Testimony may still be decisive |
| Hester (1973) | Early complaint | Supports credibility, not proof of offence |
RELATED Blog
comments