Where a defendant facing charges of sexual offences against young boys had denied being homosexual, but the prosecution had adduced evidence tending to show his homosexual disposition, there was a real risk that the jury might have drawn an inference that that evidence alone tended to show that he also had a propensity to abuse young boys. It was at least arguable that the judge should have warned the jury in strong terms not to draw such an inference.
ADMISSIBILITY CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EVIDENCE OF HOMOSEXUAL DISPOSITION HOMOSEXUALITY INFERENCES JURIES JURY DIRECTIONS PERMISSION TO APPEAL PREJUDICE RISK OF JURY DRAWING DISCRIMINATORY INFERENCE REGARDING PROPENSITY TO ABUSE YOUNG BOYS SEXUAL OFFENCES
Although cross-examination which had invited impermissible speculation by the defendant should not have been allowed, that was insufficient to support a conclusion that his conviction for rape, buggery and indecent assault was unsafe, there being no other basis on which to undermine the jury’s acceptance of the significant DNA evidence.
ADMISSIBILITY APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION FOR HISTORIC SEXUAL ASSAULT BASED ON DNA EVIDENCE BUGGERY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DNA EVIDENCE EFFECT ON SAFETY OF CONVICTION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT INVITING IMPERMISSIBLE SPECULATION INDECENT ASSAULT RAPE s.14(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.12(1) SUMMING UP
Evidence which was sought to be admitted under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(d) as evidence of propensity was not inadmissible simply because the behaviour it evidenced post-dated the offences being tried.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) EVIDENCE OF PROPENSITY GUILTY PLEAS GUILTY PLEAS TO OFFENCES CONCERNING INDECENT IMAGES OF CHILDREN ADDUCED IN SUBSEQUENT TRIAL FOR INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT IMAGES OFFENCES POST-DATING ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN PROPENSITY s.101(3) s.103(1)(a)
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).
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS UNDER S.101(1)(G) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 ATTACKS ON CHARACTER ATTACKS ON CHARACTER OF VICTIM BAD CHARACTER CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(g) JURY DIRECTIONS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROPENSITY s.101 s.103
In a trial in which the defendant was charged with sexual offences, the judge had been wrong to admit “bad character” evidence suggesting that the defendant was a voyeur.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(c) DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH SEXUAL OFFENCES PROPRIETY OF DECISION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED VOYEURISTIC CONDUCT s.101(1) s.101(1)(d) s.101(3) s.102 s.103(1) s.103(1)(a) s.103(3) s.112(1)
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 poisoning was unsafe.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2005 r.3.10(h) EFFECT OF ADMISSION OF DISPUTED BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE ON LENGTH OF TRIAL JURY DIRECTIONS LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 s.74(3) r.1.1(2)(e) r.1.2(1)(a) r.3.5(2)(b) r.31.1(2) RAPE ALLEGATIONS s.101 s.101(1) s.101(1)(b) s.101(1)(c) s.101(1)(f) s.101(1)(g) s.101(3) s.103 s.103(1)(a) s.107 s.78 SEXUAL OFFENCES TRIAL OF SATELLITE ISSUES
Convictions for rape and indecent assault were quashed where the Crown’s reliance on hearsay evidence of bad character in the form of statements containing allegations of rape had circumvented the restrictions on hearsay evidence in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSIBILITY UNDER S.114 AND S.116 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.114(1)(d) HEARSAY EVIDENCE HEARSAY EVIDENCE CONTAINING UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT Part 2 PREJUDICE RAPE s.101 s.114(1) s.114(2) s.114(2)(g) s.116 s.116(1) s.116(2) s.116(2)(a) s.116(2)(e) s.116(4) s.116(4)(b) s.9(8)
A conviction for offences of rape and indecent assault of a child was safe despite fresh evidence that questioned the basis for the expert medical evidence at trial, as it did not undermine the evidence and credibility of the victim.
ADMISSIBILITY APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968 s.23(1) CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW EFFECT OF FRESH EXPERT EVIDENCE ON SAFETY OF CONVICTION EXPERT EVIDENCE FRESH EVIDENCE INDECENT ASSAULT MEDICAL EVIDENCE RAPE RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD s.2(3) s.23(2) s.23(2)(a) s.23(2)(d) SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN
Appeals against convictions for numerous and various sexual offences were dismissed where the judge had correctly admitted evidence of the making of complaints under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.120(2) and evidence as to bad character, and had not misled the jury in his directions.
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER S.120(2) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 BAD CHARACTER CONSENT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.120(2) DIRECTIONS JURY DIRECTIONS PROPENSITY RAPE RECENT COMPLAINT s.101(1)(a) s.103(1)(a) s.112 s.114 s.114(1)(d) s.116(2)(b) s.120 s.120(7) s.120(7)(d) SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES SUMMING UP
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).
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS CONVICTION UNDER S.101(1)(G) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 APPROPRIATENESS OF ADMISSION IN LIGHT OF RELEVANT JURY DIRECTION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GUILTY PLEAS JURY DIRECTIONS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS s.101(1)(g) s.101(3) s.101(4) s.103 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003
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.