In a case involving allegations of historic child sexual abuse constituting a course of conduct, it was not possible to see how a jury had reached a guilty verdict in relation to one count, but not-guilty verdicts in relation to others. The verdicts were inconsistent, the judge had erred in giving a Watson direction, and the conviction was quashed.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES COURSE OF CONDUCT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS WATSON DIRECTIONS
A sentence of three years and ten months’ imprisonment on one count of rape and two counts of indecent assault, which represented a course of conduct of abuse by a father against a daughter, was unduly lenient.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES CHILD VICTIMS CHILDREN COURSE OF CONDUCT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DOUBLE JEOPARDY GUILTY PLEAS INCORRECT EVIDENCE ON WHICH TO BASE SENTENCE INDECENT ASSAULT PARENTS PERIOD OF TIME RAPE REPEATED OFFENCES AGAINST DAUGHTER S.36 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES UNDUE LENIENCY
A conditional discharge was unduly lenient for offences of indecent assault with a female under 13 years old and indecency with a child.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES CONDITIONAL DISCHARGES COURSE OF CONDUCT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IMPRISONMENT INDECENCY WITH A CHILD INDECENCY WITH STEPCHILD INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT ASSAULTS OFFENCE TAKING PLACE 30 YEARS PREVIOUSLY S.36 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCES SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES STEP-FATHERS STEPCHILDREN UNDUE LENIENCY UNDULY LENIENT
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.