The Criminal Cases Review Commission had been justified in refusing to refer the claimant’s two convictions for sexual offences to the Court of Appeal. The fresh evidence on which he had sought to rely did not give rise to a real possibility that the convictions would not be upheld.
ASSAULT BY PENETRATION CONVICTIONS CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EXPERT EVIDENCE FRESH EVIDENCE MEDICAL EVIDENCE RAPE
An offender who had been incorrectly convicted of indecent assault instead of gross indecency with a child had his appeal against conviction allowed and his sentence reduced to six years’ imprisonment.
CHILDREN CONSENSUAL SEXUAL CONTACT BETWEEN MUSIC TEACHER AND 15-YEAR-OLD PUPIL CONVICTIONS CRIMINAL LAW GROSS INDECENCY INDECENCY WITH CHILDREN ACT 1960 s.1 INDECENT ASSAULT OFFENCE NOT INDECENT ASSAULT BUT GROSS INDECENCY WITH CHILD s.1(1) s.14 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.14(1)
A European arrest warrant had sufficiently particularised a convicted requested person’s involvement in a conspiracy to traffic women into prostitution in Italy, the demands in respect of conviction warrants being less onerous than those in relation to accusation warrants. An ECHR art.3 argument based on Italian prison conditions had been foreclosed by the decision in Elashmawy v Italy [2015] EWHC 28 (Admin).
CONSPIRACY CONVICTIONS EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTS EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.3 EXTRADITION EXTRADITION OFFENCES HUMAN RIGHTS INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT PARTICULARS PRISON CONDITIONS s.22 s.30 s.30(2) SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.10
Where there had been confusion during the jury’s return of verdicts on four counts of an indictment against two co-defendants, and a verdict against a count of kidnap was not formally entered against one defendant, that defendant had not been convicted of kidnap. The court therefore ordered the Crown Court record to be amended accordingly and the defendant’s sentence for kidnap was quashed.
ACTUAL BODILY HARM APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION ASSAULT CO-ACCUSED CONVICTIONS COUNTS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE KIDNAPPING RAPE ROBBERY SENTENCING VERDICTS
An offender’s conviction for assault by penetration of the vagina had not been inconsistent with his acquittal for offences of attempted rape and sexual assault by anal penetration. Nor could his conviction be overturned on the grounds that the judge had given the jury a Watson direction at the same time as a majority verdict direction, as there was no evidence that the jury had been pressured into delivering compromise verdicts.
ASSAULT BY PENETRATION CONVICTIONS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS JURY DIRECTIONS MAJORITY VERDICTS OFFENDER CHARGED WITH THREE COUNTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ON YOUNG WOMAN SAFETY OF CONVICTION SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.2 WATSON DIRECTION GIVEN AT SAME TIME AS MAJORITY VERDICT DIRECTION WATSON DIRECTIONS WHETHER CONVICTION ON ONE COUNT INCONSISTENT WITH ACQUITTAL ON OTHER TWO COUNTS
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
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.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONVICTIONS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INDECENT ASSAULT LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN VERDICTS SEVERAL COUNTS OF INDECENT ASSAULT SUPPLY OF DRUGS
A judge had exercised his discretion fairly under s.41 Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 by ruling as admissible certain evidence about sexual abuse on complainant children by persons other than their parents against whom criminal proceedings had been brought.
ABUSE ADMISSIBILITY APPEALS CHILDREN COMPLAINTS CONVICTIONS CREDIT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DISCRETION EXCLUSION EXERCISE GUILT INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS INDECENCY WITH A CHILD INDECENT ASSAULT INNOCENCE INTERVIEW JURY LEAVE MISCONDUCT OTHERS PACE 1984 PARENTS PERMISSION PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY PROOF QUESTIONING RELEVANCE RIGHT TO QUESTION CHILD WITNESSES IN RELATION TO PRIOR COMPLAINTS OF ABUSE S.41 YOUTH AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.42(1)(c) S.78 POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 SEXUAL OFFENCES UNSAFE VIDEOS YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41
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.