A conviction for sexual offences against a child was safe, as medical evidence adduced as fresh had not permitted confident review of a previous diagnosis so as to describe it as ill-founded; taken at its highest it neither supported nor refuted the allegations against the offender. The defence was still that any abuse was perpetrated […]
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 judge had correctly directed a jury on the issue of doli incapax that they could look at the circumstances surrounding historic sex offences to assist them in their assessment of whether a 13-year-old boy had been aware that his acts were seriously wrong.
A sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of a 63-year-old man who had been convicted of numerous sexual offences against three teenage boys.
A conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.9 could not be substituted for a conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1), as the indictment based on the 1956 Act could not be said to expressly or impliedly include an allegation of an offence under s.9 of the 2003 Act.
The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal an extended licence period of five years for sex offences was refused, as subsequent case law did not apply retrospectively.
