A conviction was quashed where credibility had been the key issue in a sexual offences case and the judge had given an unclear good character direction that was tantamount to a bad character direction.
A conviction was quashed where credibility had been the key issue in a sexual offences case and the judge had given an unclear good character direction that was tantamount to a bad character direction.
BAD CHARACTER CLARITY OF DIRECTIONS WHERE CREDIBILITY KEY ISSUE CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY GOOD CHARACTER INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS LUCAS DIRECTIONS MISDIRECTIONS ON LAW
A conviction for indecent assault was quashed where prejudicial witness evidence rendered the conviction unsafe. It was not appropriate to order a retrial owing to the antiquity of the proceedings and the defendant’s old age and failing health.
BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS PRE-TRIAL EVIDENCE PREJUDICIAL WITNESS EVIDENCE SAFETY OF CONVICTION WHETHER RETRIAL APPROPRIATE
Where an accused convicted of indecent assault of a man had mistakenly been charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1) instead of s.15(1) and had been found unfit to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 s.4A, the conviction was unsafe. Section 4A clearly stated that the jury had to be satisfied that the accused had done the act charged. Even though the indictment particulars were accurate, the actus reus of indecent assault on a woman could not be established by an indecent assault on a man.
ACCUSED MISTAKENLY CHARGED WITH INDECENT ASSAULT OF WOMAN ACCUSED UNFIT TO STAND TRIAL FOR INDECENT ASSAULT OF MAN ACTUS REUS OF INDECENT ASSAULT OF WOMAN NOT ESTABLISHED BY INDECENT ASSAULT OF A MAN. BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968 s.15 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 s.4A FITNESS TO PLEAD INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS MISTAKE RETRIALS s.15(1) s.16 s.16(1)(b) s.16(4) s.161 s.3 s.4 s.41 s.4A(2) s.4A(2)(b) s.5 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.14(1) SUMMING UP UNSAFE CONVICTIONS
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)
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
A judge had been correct to admit a defendant’s previous convictions as bad character under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(d), despite their being over 30 years old, since they had relevant factual similarities to the offence charged and were of sufficient probative force.
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSIBILITY OF OLD CONVICTIONS FOR OFFENCES SIMILAR TO OFFENCE CHARGED BAD CHARACTER CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) EVIDENCE AS TO PROPENSITY PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROPENSITY s.101 s.103(1)(a) s.103(2) s.103(3) s.225 s.229 SEXUAL ASSAULT SPENT CONVICTIONS
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.