A judge had not erred in refusing to sever an indictment containing counts relating to separate incidents of murder and sexual assault. The incidents were broadly similar and close in time and there were a number of very significant similarities. The issue as to whether they were wholly disconnected was a matter for the jury.
Where a defendant, charged with committing sexual offences against his stepdaughters, had attacked the character of one of the victims, the judge had been entitled to allow the prosecution to admit evidence of the defendant’s previous convictions for non-sexual offences in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(g).
The erroneous admission of disputed bad character evidence by a trial judge had resulted in the trial of collateral issues which significantly contributed to the lengthening of a trial such that it had been very difficult for the jury to maintain focus. Accordingly, the conviction for rape, sexual assault, false imprisonment, threatening to kill and […]
Where a judge had given a direction to the jury that it was not to convict the defendant only on the basis of his similar previous conviction and, looking at the matter overall, the judge had properly admitted evidence of the previous conviction under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(g).
The judge had been wrong to admit documents, prepared by police officers, giving details of methods used in the commission of offences of which the appellant had been previously convicted, but the appellant’s convictions for the instant offences were nevertheless safe. It was important that the formal procedures referred to in R. v Hanson (Nicky) […]
There was no power to add an extended sentence to a detention and training order under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.85 .
The Court of Appeal gave guidelines for imposing extended periods of licence under s.85 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
