The fact that an intermediary had provided physical and emotional support to a vulnerable and distressed complainant during a rape trial did not result in a serious risk of unfairness to the defendant. Both counsel and the judge had warned the jury to approach the complainant’s evidence untrammelled by sympathy.
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.
Where an offender had been convicted of historic sexual offences in respect of his step-daughter, who was five or six years’ old at the time of the abuse, the appropriate sentence was a term of five years’ imprisonment. The key to the sentencing exercise in such cases was to assess the harm from the offending […]
A conviction for attempted rape was quashed following the admission of new DNA evidence taken from clothing worn by the victim at the time of the offence.
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.
