A judge had not erred in rejecting a submission of no case to answer in a trial for sexual assault where the only evidence against the accused was identification evidence from the victim. However, when admitting evidence of the accused’s previous conviction, the jury should have been told that the accused had only been included in an identification procedure because of his conviction.
ADMISSIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IDENTIFICATION PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS SEXUAL ASSAULT SUMMING UP TURNBULL DIRECTIONS UNSAFE CONVICTIONS
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.
ADMISSIBILITY COINCIDENCE CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2014 r.14.2(3) CROSS-ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE INDICTMENTS MURDER Pt 1 s.103 s.3 s.31 s.53 SEVERANCE SEXUAL ASSAULT SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ATTACKS ON YOUNG FEMALE VICTIMS
An offender’s convictions for historic offences of rape, buggery, attempted rape, indecent assault and murder were deemed safe, as the judge had given the jury adequate directions as to the dangers of delay and its effect on the evidence.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSION OF HISTORIC EVIDENCE ATTEMPTS BUGGERY CONFESSIONS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY EFFECT ON FAIRNESS OF TRIAL INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS MURDER POLICE INTERVIEWS PREJUDICE RAPE SEXUAL OFFENCES SIGNIFICANT DELAY IN CHARGING OFFENDER
A jury’s findings on a trial of the facts that a defendant with severe learning difficulties who was unfit to plead had committed two offences of rape were safe, notwithstanding the fact that an extract of the defendant’s police interview had been wrongly admitted as evidence.
ADMISSIBILITY CASE MANAGEMENT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2013 DEFENDANT WITH SEVERE LEARNING DIFFICULTIES AND UNFIT TO PLEAD EXTRACT OF POLICE INTERVIEW WRONGLY ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE ON TRIAL OF FACTS FINDINGS OF FACT FITNESS TO PLEAD LEARNING DISABLED PERSONS LUCAS DIRECTIONS MENTAL HEALTH MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS POLICE INTERVIEWS RAPE RAPE ALLEGATIONS SAFETY OF JURY’S FINDINGS SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST MENTALLY DISORDERED PERSONS
The appellant’s conviction for sexual offences committed against a 12- or 13-year-old boy was unsafe given the admission in evidence of his prior conviction for the buggery of a 17-year-old male; the essence of the allegation in the instant case was that the appellant had committed violent, paedophilic offences against the will of a 12- or 13-year-old victim, whereas the buggery offence involved consensual sexual relations with a person who would now be above the age of consent.
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSIBILITY OF PREVIOUS CONVICTION APPELLANT CHARGED WITH SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST 12- OR 13-YEAR-OLD BOY CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROPENSITY
Although part of prosecuting counsel’s cross-examination of a rape defendant, related to bad character and based on inadmissible hearsay evidence, had been misjudged and regrettable, it had not affected the overall fairness of the proceedings or the safety of the verdict.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CAUTIONS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DETENTION FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION EFFECT ON OVERALL FAIRNESS OF PROCEEDINGS AND SAFETY OF CONVICTION HEARSAY EVIDENCE INTRODUCTION OF INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF RAPE DEFENDANT RAPE SENTENCING SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN YOUNG OFFENDERS
A judge receiving fresh prosecution evidence during the course of a trial might have put undue pressure on a defendant to change his plea by indicating that he would give a reasonable amount of credit if he did so. However, the incident could not lay the foundation for an allegation of bias because the defendant had continued to maintain his innocence and the judge had continued to conduct the trial entirely fairly.
ADMISSIBILITY BIAS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FALSE IMPRISONMENT FRESH EVIDENCE JUDGE RECEIVING FRESH EVIDENCE INDICATING REASONABLE CREDIT WOULD BE GIVEN IF DEFENDANT CHANGED PLEA JUDICIAL INDICATIONS JURY DIRECTIONS PROPENSITY SEXUAL ASSAULT SUMMING UP WHETHER JUDGE BIASED
There was no support for the proposition that the Criminal Justice (Evidence) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 had changed the law by prohibiting bad character evidence on its own from constituting, in appropriate circumstances, evidence of identity.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (EVIDENCE) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 2004 IDENTITY MURDER NORTHERN IRELAND PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE ON ITS OWN TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY
There was no support for the proposition that the Criminal Justice (Evidence) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 had changed the law by prohibiting bad character evidence on its own from constituting, in appropriate circumstances, evidence of identity.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (EVIDENCE) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 2004 IDENTITY MURDER NORTHERN IRELAND PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE ON ITS OWN TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY
A Crown Court judge presiding over a retrial had been wrong to designate a pre-trial hearing as a preparatory hearing, and so the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the defendants’ interlocutory appeal against his ruling that the complainant’s police interview and cross-examination at the original trial could be admitted as hearsay evidence at the retrial.
ADMISSIBILITY COMPLAINANT’S REFUSAL TO ATTEND RETRIAL COMPLEXITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.114(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 s.29 DESIGNATION AS PREPARATORY HEARING HEARSAY EVIDENCE JURISDICTION PRE-TRIAL HEARINGS PREPARATORY HEARINGS RULING AT HEARING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPLAINANT’S EARLIER EVIDENCE AS HEARSAY s.114 s.114(2) s.114(2)(g) s.116 s.116(2) s.116(2)(b) s.116(2)(e) s.13(1) s.1311(1)(c) s.29(1) s.3(5) s.31 s.35(1) s.40 s.40(4) s.91(1) SERIOUSNESS AND LIKELY LENGTH OF TRIAL SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE SEXUAL OFFENCES
Please use the form below to make contact. Your email will be responded to promptly (we endeavour to respond to all email enquiries within one hour). Alternatively, you can call Stephen's firm, Twelve Tabulae Limited, on +44 (0) 203 846 5801.