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 |
🧠 Quick Review Questions
Is corroboration legally required to convict in sexual offence cases?
When can previous sexual history be brought into court?
How does intoxication affect the ability to give valid consent?
Can a video-recorded child interview be used as the main evidence?
Does DNA evidence automatically override a victim’s testimony?
RELATED Blog
0 comments