In change of law cases it was not open to the Criminal Cases Review Commission lawfully to apply a policy that it was under no obligation to have regard to the practice of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and accordingly just as the court would not normally extend time in such cases, a conviction […]
The judge’s summing up had devalued the importance of the effect of the delay between the offences and trial. In the particular circumstances of the case a direction should have been given, warning the jury of convicting the appellant of sexual offences without independent supporting evidence.
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.
