The Criminal Cases Review Commission had been justified in refusing to refer the claimant’s two convictions for sexual offences to the Court of Appeal. The fresh evidence on which he had sought to rely did not give rise to a real possibility that the convictions would not be upheld.
An offender who had been incorrectly convicted of indecent assault instead of gross indecency with a child had his appeal against conviction allowed and his sentence reduced to six years’ imprisonment.
A European arrest warrant had sufficiently particularised a convicted requested person’s involvement in a conspiracy to traffic women into prostitution in Italy, the demands in respect of conviction warrants being less onerous than those in relation to accusation warrants. An ECHR art.3 argument based on Italian prison conditions had been foreclosed by the decision in […]
Where there had been confusion during the jury’s return of verdicts on four counts of an indictment against two co-defendants, and a verdict against a count of kidnap was not formally entered against one defendant, that defendant had not been convicted of kidnap. The court therefore ordered the Crown Court record to be amended accordingly […]
An offender’s conviction for assault by penetration of the vagina had not been inconsistent with his acquittal for offences of attempted rape and sexual assault by anal penetration. Nor could his conviction be overturned on the grounds that the judge had given the jury a Watson direction at the same time as a majority verdict […]
It was appropriate to quash a conviction for attempted buggery and indecent assault where new evidence that cast doubt on the veracity of the victim’s evidence, that had not been presented at the offender’s trial, threw the safety of his conviction for indecent assault and attempted buggery into doubt.
An appeal against five convictions for indecent assault failed, where the defendant had been acquitted of one further count of indecent assault and where the jury had been unable to agree on two others. There was no logical inconsistency between the verdicts.
A judge had exercised his discretion fairly under s.41 Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 by ruling as admissible certain evidence about sexual abuse on complainant children by persons other than their parents against whom criminal proceedings had been brought.
