Appeal Court decisions in relation to cases of administering stupefying substances
In response to concerns that the principle of double jeopardy was no longer referred to in judgments of the Court of Appeal in references made by the Attorney General, the court expressed its view that, although the double jeopardy principle remained for consideration in the kind of case identified in Attorney General’s Reference (Nos 14 and 15 of 2006)  EWCA Crim 1335, the practice had evolved so that no reference was made to it, save in the rare category of case in which it was likely to arise.
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.
Convictions on charges of rape and living on prostitution brought under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were quashed where the indictment had alleged that the offences had occurred between dates straddling the entry into force of the Act, and there was no evidence to show under which statutory regime the offences had fallen.
The absence of any indication of the period of time after which the appellant could be considered no longer to pose a risk of future offending meant that an indeterminate sentence was required.