CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT DBE
MR JUSTICE SILBER
MR JUSTICE LEWIS
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
v | ||
PAUL LATHAM |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr B Berlyne (Solicitor Advocate) appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Background
Ruling on Character
14. Ground of Appeal
" It seems to us that this is a commonsense question which must receive a commonsense answer. The commonsense answer is that such evidence can indeed be relevant. A sexual interest in small children or pre-pubescent girls or boys is a relatively unusual character trait. It may not be quite as unusual as it ought to be, but it is certainly not the norm. The case against a defendant who is charged with sexual abuse of children is that he has such an interest or character trait and then, additionally, that he has translated the interest into active abuse of a child. The evidence of his interest tends to prove the first part of the case. In ordinary language to show that he has a sexual interest in children does make it more likely that the allegation of the child complainant is true, rather than having coincidentally been made against someone who does not have that interest. For those reasons, we are satisfied that evidence of the viewing and/or collection of child pornography is capable of being admissible through gateway D. We emphasise that it does not follow that it is automatically admissible. There is nothing automatic about any of these bad character provisions. They require an exercise of judgment, specific, in every trial."
At paragraph 19, Hughes LJ repeated the court's general conclusion that:
"... Possession of child pornography may, depending on the facts of the case, demonstrate a sexual interest in children which can be admissible through gateway D upon trial for offences of sexual abuse of children. It will not always be so. There may be a sufficient difference between what is viewed and what is alleged to have been done for there to be no plausible link."
Accordingly, Mr McGarry submitted that the interview could and should have been edited so that the attack upon the character of the prosecution witnesses was not in issue.
Conclusions