SH, R. v

Offences involving different complainants may be treated as a series of the same or similar character when their overall features show sufficient similarity. Relevant features may include the sexual nature of the allegations, the family setting, the relationship between each complainant and the defendant, and a comparable pattern of seeking sexual gratification or making sexual bargains. The assessment is evaluative and does not depend on cross-admissibility of the evidence between counts.

The appellant appealed against convictions at Southampton Crown Court before HHJ Boggis QC and a jury. He was convicted of sexual assault and attempted rape against his wife, and of two counts of causing or inciting his 15-year-old daughter to engage in sexual activity.

The appeal challenged only the inclusion on one indictment of the counts concerning the wife and those concerning the daughter. The appellant contended that they were too different in nature, timing and context to form a series of offences of the same or similar character. The central issue was whether the trial judge had been entitled to reach the contrary conclusion.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The trial judge was entitled to conclude that the counts concerning the appellant’s wife and daughter formed a series of offences of the same or similar character.

2. The court accepted that there were differences between the two groups of allegations. The allegations concerning the wife extended over a long marriage and included consensual intercourse within that relationship. The allegations concerning the daughter concerned isolated incidents at a later time, and she was 15 whereas the wife was an adult.

3. Those differences did not prevent the required similarity being found. Both complainants were members of the appellant’s family. All the allegations were sexual and arose within the same family environment. The wife’s evidence of the appellant’s unusually demanding need for immediate sexual gratification could be reflected in his request that his daughter show him her breasts in return for alcohol.

4. The court also regarded as material the evidence that the appellant had sought a sexual bargain with his wife. That supported the comparison with the bargain alleged in relation to his daughter. The prosecution did not need to rely on cross-admissibility to establish the requisite series. The jury direction allowing use of one complainant’s evidence in considering the other was not challenged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against conviction dismissed: [2010] EWCA Crim 171.
• Crown Court at Southampton: the appellant was convicted before HHJ Boggis QC and a jury on 27 January 2009.