Admitting aquittal evidence

There would seem to be a legal ruling called  House of Lords inD.P.P. v. P [1991] 2 A.C. 447. whch stipulates that if a defendent has been previously charged and aquitted in court then these charges can be allowed as evidence in fresh charges against the person concerned. That is, if the person concerned is now charged again by a different complainant for a similar crime.

This is my understanding from reading about  House of Lords inD.P.P. v. P [1991] 2 A.C. 447.  in the abstract below

AN accused is charged with rape. He will claim that the complainant consented. The Crown can prove that on four previous occasions that selfsame accused has been tried on other counts of rape, but on all but one of them has been acquitted. The trial judge rules that, had the accused been convicted of all four earlier rapes, such evidence would have been admissible at the fifth trial under the similar fact evidence principles enunciated by the House of Lords inD.P.P. v. P [1991] 2 A.C. 447. The single earlier conviction, however, standing alone, does not qualify as admissible similar fact evidence. These, in essence, were the facts confronting the House of Lords in R. v. Z [2000] 3 W.L.R. 117, the general question for the House being: despite three of Z’s previous trials having resulted in acquittals, was the Crown entitled to lead evidence of all four earlier incidents, including testimony from the three complainants whose allegations had failed to persuade juries in the past?

Source: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=63215&fileId=S0008197300380205

see also http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2986168

and http://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/research/publications/vuwlr/prev-issues/pdf/vol-34-2003/issue-4/mcdonald.pdf ( admitting aquital evidence)

The idea that memory can be “contaminated” has been stressed by Loftus

. “I began to think of it as a process of memory contamination, and we eventually called it the misinformation effect.”

It apears that the UK false memory club are now working together with other advocacy organisations to overturn this ruling.

I would suggest that you all contact…… ( removed ) I went to a ( removed ) meeting in London on Saturday. I was sat in a room with hundreds of people who have been falsely accused. Some not charged, some waiting to go to trial, some now home from a prison sentence, some having been through a trial and found innocent and some like me with partners actually serving prison sentences. At this meeting I discovered what is going on. I came home and checked our file papers and the accuser in our case, had been in a mental health unit, voluntary, for 2 months. Suddenly she has flashbacks of something that didn’t happen many years ago. It is a pattern. Therapists with no qualifications except maybe a 10 week course, making horrendous suggestions to vulnerable people. I won’t make any other comments. Contact the (removed) discover for yourself. There is a ( removed) meeting in Birmingham on (removed). If you have been affected by any false allegations come to this meeting, Together we can try to stop this. Should anyone wish to contact me I give (removed) permission to give you my email address. I will also be at the (removed) meeting in (removed). We must put a stop to this. We have rights too. We deserve Justice.

Source

Inside Time. April 2016

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s