An appeal against a sexual offences prevention order was dismissed as the order had not been imposed based on the fact that a specific person had been sexually abused, but on the basis of an earlier conviction, and later behaviour which posed a risk to the public of serious sexual harm.
A judge had been entitled to continue a trial after one juror was discharged and there was nothing to suggest this had impacted on the fairness with which the remaining jurors had viewed the evidence. The jury had been placed under no pressure to return a verdict and had clearly taken care in analysing the […]
Evidence prejudicial to the defence and of no probative value that had inadvertently been disclosed at the appellant’s trial had resulted in unfairness to the appellant and it was doubtful, given the importance of his good character to his defence, that any directions could have overcome that unfairness.
