A summing up which repeatedly invited the jury to consider what motive the complainant would have for lying in relation to her allegations of sexual abuse by the defendant failed to strike a fair and proper balance between prosecution and defence.
Convictions for indecent assault and gross indecency were unsafe where fresh evidence concerning the sexual function and erectile problems of a participant in the alleged abuse might, if accepted by the jury, have affected its decision to convict the accused as it was capable of providing independent evidence that the complainant’s allegations were not true.
A judge had not erred in law in rejecting an offender’s submission of no case to answer to four counts of rape and two counts of sexual assault, all of a child aged under 13, in circumstances where, despite inconsistencies in the victim’s evidence, through the victim’s various accounts the judge had a clear basis […]
Where a case concerning allegations of rape and of aiding and abetting rape turned entirely on the credibility of the complainant as against the appellants, and evidence which went to that issue had been excluded, even though that had been done with the agreement of defence counsel, the convictions were quashed.
Fresh evidence did not render a conviction for rape unsafe as the evidence, which related to an alleged assault on the complainant when she was younger, would not have affected the complainant’s credibility in the eyes of the jury. Further, there was no reasonable explanation for the defence not to have adduced the evidence at […]
Evidence prejudicial to the defence and of no probative value that had inadvertently been disclosed at the appellant’s trial had resulted in unfairness to the appellant and it was doubtful, given the importance of his good character to his defence, that any directions could have overcome that unfairness.
Where a defendant faced several counts of sexual offences on the same victim, the jury’s verdicts could not be said to be inconsistent where it had convicted the defendant on the only count that had supporting evidence.
The appellant’s convictions for indecent assaults against young girls over 30 years ago were safe. His sentence would be reduced from seven years to four and a half years as these were not the most serious offences of their kind.
