Event and Time
Event Description
The case involves a respondent facing trial in the County Court on an indictment charging him with 27 sexual offences against two brothers, identified as ‘MW’ and ‘EW’, during the period from 1999 to 2011, while he was in a domestic relationship with their mother. The prosecution seeks to rely on the respondent’s tendency to have an improper sexual interest in his step-children and to exploit his position of trust to commit these offences.
Application and Claims
The prosecution's case is grounded on:
- The respondent's improper sexual interest and willingness to act on it.
- Specific tendencies related to the nature of the relationship with the complainants, such as using positions of trust and seeking situations alone with the alleged victims.
Judicial Decisions
At a pre-trial hearing, the judge ruled that:
- The evidence relating to both the charged and uncharged acts was admissible as tendency evidence.
- However, the jury must be directed that they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that these charged acts occurred before considering them as evidence for establishing a tendency.
- The ruling emphasized the need for a clear and specific jury direction to avoid confusion regarding the standards of proof.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Prosecution's Argument:
- The prosecution contended that the jury should be directed as per s 61 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (JDA) and asserted that the direction to consider charged acts under different standards of proof was erroneous.
- Defence's Argument:
- The defence argued, referencing the Dempsey case, that the jury should be required to find the charged acts to have occurred beyond reasonable doubt before they could be used as tendency evidence, thus ensuring the integrity of the criminal standard of proof.