![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> DM, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 1544 (21 April 2008) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/1544.html Cite as: [2009] 1 Cr App R 10, [2008] EWCA Crim 1544, [2009] 1 Cr App Rep 10 |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE MADDISON
SIR RICHARD CURTIS
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
v | ||
DM |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr R Gioserano appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"... the important matter in issue was not whether the appellant had a propensity to commit offences or to be untruthful but whether the circumstantial evidence linking him to the robberies, when viewed as a whole, pointed to his participation in and guilt of each offence." (paragraph 39).
"The present case is one in which quite clearly if the evidence did establish a propensity in the defendant occasionally to molest young female patients in the course of dental examination, that did make it more likely that he had committed the several offences charged. We do not understand Mr Coker to submit otherwise. Of course, where propensity is advanced by way of multiple complaints, none of which has yet been proved, and whether they are proved or not is the question which the jury must answer, that is a different case from the case where propensity is advanced through proof of a previous conviction which may be incapable of contradiction."