Two appeals against conviction for the sexual abuse of children were dismissed. Although the judge should not have allowed the jury to return their verdicts piecemeal, that had not affected the overall safety of the convictions. However, in trials of sexual abuse cases involving multiple counts, trial judges should invite the jury not to return their verdicts until they had concluded their deliberations on all counts.
ADMISSIBILITY APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION CHILD SEX OFFENCES COUNTS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JURY DIRECTIONS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROPENSITY VERDICTS
A multiple-counts indictment under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 r.14.2(2), which allowed multiple instances of similar offences to be charged as a course of conduct, would not be properly drafted unless it specified a minimum number of occasions on which the offending was alleged to have happened. Otherwise, where a defendant was convicted on such an indictment, a sentencing judge could not know how many times the jury believed the offence to have been committed, and fairness would require him to sentence on the basis that it was more than once, but no more than twice.
COUNTS CRIME AND VICTIMS ACT 2004 s.17 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2014 r.14.2(2) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FRESH EVIDENCE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INDICTMENTS MULTIPLE COUNTS REPRESENTING COURSE OF CONDUCT NEED FOR PROPER DRAFTING r.14.2 RAPE s.19 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL ASSAULT
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
Guilty verdicts on two sample counts of rape relating to a six-year period were logically inconsistent with acquittals on four specific counts of rape against the same victim. A reasonable jury could not, on the paucity of the stand-alone evidence concerning the sample counts, be sure of guilt in relation to them if they rejected the specific events.
CONSENT COUNTS CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS JURIES PREVIOUS INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS RAPE
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.