At the moment the prosecution is adducing evidence from women who allege they were assaulted as children by Rolf Harris, in Australia and New Zealand. But Harris is not charged with those assaults because they happened in other jurisdictions.
How do British evidentiary rules deal with this? How can the court hear from witnesses about matters which the court is not adjudicating upon?
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (UK) extends the bounds of evidence way beyond what I learned in law school many years ago (NZ).
Propensity and similar fact evidence are high hurdles. Usually such evidence can only be adduced when a defendant has previous convictions of a very similar nature and I’m not aware of Rolf Harris being previously convicted.
We have to assume his counsel fought tooth and nail to have this propensity evidence excluded and I’m a bit surprised the probative value test was overcome.
Or maybe they took a punt, reasoning that 30yr old experiences by enthralled schoolgirls are fantasies or misconceptions.
The CJA 2003 is on of the most badly thought out laws ever passed.
[QUOTE=RoseLJ ]
So, yet again, the courts are faced with a sample of the deeply confusing provisions of the Criminal So, yet again, the courts are faced with a sample of the deeply confusing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the satellite statutory instruments to which it is giving stuttering birth. The most inviting course for this Court to follow, would be for its members, having shaken their heads in despair, to hold up their hands and say: “the Holy Grail of rational interpretation is impossible to find”. But it is not for us to desert our judicial duty, however lamentably others have legislated. But, we find little comfort or assistance in the historic canons of construction for determining the will of Parliament which were fashioned in a more leisurely age and at a time when elegance and clarity of thought and language were to be found in legislation as a matter of course rather than exception.[51] Act 2003, and the satellite statutory instruments to which it is giving stuttering birth. The most inviting course for this Court to follow, would be for its members, having shaken their heads in despair, to hold up their hands and say: “the Holy Grail of rational interpretation is impossible to find”. But it is not for us to desert our judicial duty, however lamentably others have legislated. But, we find little comfort or assistance in the historic canons of construction for determining the will of Parliament which were fashioned in a more leisurely age and at a time when elegance and clarity of thought and language were to be found in legislation as a matter of course rather than exception.
[/QUOTE]
This is still the rule in the US (at least in criminal cases), except that evidence of a defendant’s propensity will be admitted if he alleges entrapment (since the theory behind an entrapment defense is that the police convinced the defendant to do something he ordinarily would not have.)