It was appropriate to quash a conviction for attempted buggery and indecent assault where new evidence that cast doubt on the veracity of the victim’s evidence, that had not been presented at the offender’s trial, threw the safety of his conviction for indecent assault and attempted buggery into doubt.
BUGGERY CONVICTIONS CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FRESH EVIDENCE FRESH EVIDENCE UNDERMINING VICTIM’S CREDIBILITY INDECENT ASSAULT SAFETY
A notional determinate sentence that equated to 30 years’ imprisonment before a one-third reduction for guilty pleas, which had formed the basis for calculating the specified minimum term of a life sentence imposed for 28 counts relating to the sexual abuse of five boys, was excessive and reduced to 20 years.
28 COUNTS RELATING TO SEXUAL ABUSE OF FIVE BOYS ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST APPROPRIATE NOTIONAL DETERMINATE SENTENCE ATTEMPTS BUGGERY CALCULATION OF MINIMUM TERM CAUSING CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY CHILD SEX OFFENCES CHILDREN CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.225 FILMS INCITEMENT INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN LIFE IMPRISONMENT MEETING CHILDREN FOLLOWING SEXUAL GROOMING MINIMUM TERM PENETRATION RAPE SENTENCING SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SEXUAL ASSAULT
On a charge of buggery with a male under the age of 16 pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.12 , an appellant was entitled to plead in defence that he honestly believed the complainant to be over the age of 16. The s.12 offence was not a strict liability offence.
AGE AVAILABILITY OF DEFENCE OF HONEST BELIEF BELIEF AS TO AGE OF COMPLAINANT BUGGERY CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL LIABILITY DEFENCES HONEST BELIEF HONEST BELIEF VICTIM OVER 16 YEARS OLD IMPOSITION OF STRICT LIABILITY INTENTION OF PARLIAMENT MENS REA MENTAL ELEMENT s.1 s.10 S.12 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.14 s.14(1) s.14(2) s.14(4) S.143(1) CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 S.3 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1967 s.5 S.5 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.6 S.6 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.6(3) s.7 SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) ACT 2000 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.12 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1967
Investigations discontinued prior to April 1 1997 did not amount to a criminal investigation invoking the committal regime under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Part I . However a hybrid committal could take place if previous investigations had been put on hold and resurrected following the 1996 Act coming into force.
ABUSE OF PROCESS ADVERSE INFERENCES BUGGERY CARE WORKERS COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL COMMITTALS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 s.34 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 CROSS-ADMISSIBILITY DELAY FAILURE TO MENTION FACTS INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS JURY DIRECTIONS AS TO ADVERSE INFERENCES AND CROSS ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE LOCAL AUTHORITY RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAGISTRATES’ COURTS ACT 1980 MANIFESLTLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCE PARTI CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 RAPE RESIDENTIAL CARE S.34 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEVERANCE SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES COMMITTED AT LOCAL AUTHORITY RESIDENTIAL CENTRE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS SUMMING UP
A two year suspended sentence for offences of indecent assault, indecency with a child and buggery was unduly lenient. Taking into account that the defendant was 66 years old at the time of trial and the principle of double jeopardy, the sentence would be quashed and a sentence of four years’ imprisonment substituted.
ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST BREACH OF TRUST BUGGERY CHILDREN CRIMINAL LAW DIFFICULT SENTENCING EXERCISE ILL HEALTH INDECENT ASSAULT SENTENCING SEXUAL ABUSE SUSPENDED SENTENCES THREE YEAR SEXUAL ABUSE OF BOY AGED BETWEEN 10 AND 13 UNDUE LENIENCY
There was nothing in the applicants circumstances making it unfair or oppressive now to return him to New Zealand to stand trial for serious sexual offences involving abuse of his position of trust as a priest and a teacher.
20 YEARS ELAPSED SINCE ALLEGED OFFENCES ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST ADMINISTRATIVE LAW BUGGERY COMMITTAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY EXTRADITION EXTRADITION ACT 1989 s.11 FAIR TRIALS HABEAS CORPUS INDECENT ASSAULTS MINORS OPPRESSIVE PASSAGE OF TIME POSSIBILITY OF FAIR TRIAL PRIESTS s.11(3)(b) S.11(3)(B) EXTRADITION ACT 1989 s.9(8) SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES TEACHERS UNFAIR YOUNG MEN
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.