Fresh evidence which cast doubt on the credibility of a complainant’s evidence had sufficient impact on the safety of a conviction for rape for it to be quashed. However, the evidence did not have the same impact on the complainant’s credibility in respect of allegations of sexual assault, which were upheld.
ADMISSIBILITY CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968 s.23 CRIMINAL EVIDENCE FRESH EVIDENCE MEDICAL EVIDENCE RAPE SEXUAL ASSAULT
A judge had erred in refusing to allow cross-examination of a rape complainant regarding her previous convictions, as the evidence was of substantial probative value in respect of the question of whether her allegation was worthy of belief. However, the evidence would have had no significant impact on the jury’s consideration of the specific issues of creditworthiness in the circumstances of the case and the conviction was safe.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CREDIBILITY CREDITWORTHINESS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(b) CROSS-EXAMINATION JUDGE’S REFUSAL TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF RAPE VICTIM CONCERNING HER PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS RAPE s.100 s.100(1)(b) s.100(3)(c) s.101(1)(e) VICTIMS
In the circumstances, the fact that a complainant had made an unfounded allegation of rape against an accused in a retrial did not cast doubt on the reliability of her evidence against him in an earlier trial so as to render unsafe his conviction for sexual assault in that earlier trial.
CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE FRESH EVIDENCE RAPE RELIABILITY RELIABILITY OF COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE ON SEXUAL ASSAULT SAFETY OF CONVICTION SEXUAL ASSAULT
In a case in which the defendant failed to mention in interview a matter on which he later relied in his defence, but that matter was one which the jury might find to be a lie in any event, the judge was right to give a direction which combined elements of a Lucas direction and a direction under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.34.
CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 s.34 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FALSE STATEMENTS JURY DIRECTIONS LUCAS DIRECTIONS RAPE SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING
The Appeal Division of the Isle of Man had been entitled to conclude that an autistic man’s conviction for sexual assault was safe. The expert evidence adduced by the offender about his condition did not lead to a different conclusion because the evidence, as a whole, supported conviction.
AUTISTIC SPECTRUM DISORDER CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ISLE OF MAN SEXUAL ASSAULT SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE UNSAFE CONVICTIONS VULNERABLE DEFENDANTS WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE WHETHER PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT AUTISTIC DEFENDANT ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
A trial judge had a wide discretion as to what warning, if any, he gave to a jury in relation to a witness’s alleged unreliability. In the instant case, the judge had given an adequate and appropriate warning to the jury with regard to the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and an admitted lie, and the offender’s conviction for indecent assault and rape was safe.
CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DISCRETION INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS LIE TOLD BY COMPLAINANT LUCAS DIRECTIONS RAPE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 STRENGTH OF WARNING TO JURY AS TO NEED FOR CAUTION WITNESSES
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
Although a judge in a rape trial had not specifically directed the jury that evidence given by witnesses of what the complainant had told them after the incident was not independent evidence of the acts complained of, there had, in the circumstances, been no real risk of the jury assuming that it was.
COMPLAINTS CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.120 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EVIDENCE FROM WITNESSES TO WHOM COMPLAINT MADE INDEPENDENT NATURE OF COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE JURY DIRECTIONS PREVIOUS CONSISTENT STATEMENTS RECENT COMPLAINT s.120(7) SEXUAL OFFENCES VICTIMS
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
Where the cross-examination of a complainant under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41(1) to show that her allegations of sexual abuse against an individual were false, and therefore that her allegations against the defendant were likely to be false, meant that the jury would have been told about the individual’s limited admissions to the allegations, there was no real prospect that the jury would infer that the allegations were false, and an application under s.41(1) was refused.
APPLICATION UNDER S.41(1) OF YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESS CHILD SEX OFFENCES CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CROSS-EXAMINATION EFFECT OF ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THIRD PARTY ON ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST DEFENDANT SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILD FAMILY MEMBERS SEXUAL OFFENCES TRUTHFULLNESS OF ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THIRD PARTY WITNESSES YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41(1)
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.