R v Simon Davies
[2024] EWCA Crim 471
R v John Mylrea Caine
28 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 225
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually assaulting a boy decades ago. He appealed, arguing that the judge made a mistake in how he presented past convictions as evidence. The court agreed the judge made a mistake, but said it didn't affect the guilty verdict. They did, however, cancel a court order that was meant to stop him from working with children in the future because it wasn't necessary.
Key Facts
- •John Mylrea Caine (applicant), a former BBC journalist and radio presenter, was convicted of three counts of indecent assault on a male person under the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
- •The offences involved indecent assaults on a 13-14 year old boy (C) between 1977 and 1978.
- •Caine was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment (4 years concurrent on counts 1 & 2, 8 years on count 4) and a 20-year sexual harm prevention order.
- •Caine had previous convictions for indecent assault in 1999 (the Manchester convictions), which were admitted as bad character evidence.
- •The appeal concerned the admissibility of the bad character evidence, the sufficiency of evidence for count 4, and the sentencing.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences Act 1992 apply to prevent identification of victims.
Sexual Offences Act 1992
Admissibility of bad character evidence under section 101(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires weighing probative value against prejudicial effect.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 101(3)
Under section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a defendant convicted of an offence is presumed to have committed it, but can rebut this presumption on the balance of probabilities.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 74(3)
A sexual harm prevention order should only be imposed where necessary.
Case law implication
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
While there was a misdirection regarding the jury's consideration of the bad character evidence (failure to properly address the rebuttable presumption of guilt under s.74(3) PACE), the court found the conviction safe due to the lack of any realistic possibility of the jury finding the applicant innocent of the prior offences based on the evidence presented.
Appeal against sentence partially allowed.
The sexual harm prevention order was quashed as unnecessary given the applicant's age and the fact he would be on the sex offender register, preventing him from working with children.