Top Rape Barrister and Leading Criminal KC
Call now: +44 (0) 141 2800504
≡
  • Home
  • Expertise
    • Rape Defence Barrister
    • Sexual Assault
      • Assault By Penetration Defence Barrister
      • Assault By Touching Defence Barrister
      • Administering Substances Defence Barrister
    • Underage sex
      • Grooming
    • Exploitation
    • Porn / Voyeurism
  • Criminal Appeals
  • Bail
  • Direct Access
  • Contact
  •  Call +44 (0) 141 2800504
Top Criminal Barrister QC and Leading Rape Defence Counsel

CROSS-EXAMINATION

August 1, 2019

A judge had erred in imposing a wasted costs order on a defence barrister after discharging the jury following the barrister’s closing speech. In front of the jury, the barrister had inappropriately criticised the procedure by which questions for young and vulnerable witnesses were formulated in advance, and had also strayed beyond the bounds of appropriate comment in relation to the complainant’s sexual behaviour. However, his comments could have been dealt with in the judge’s summing up and did not call for the discharge of the jury.

CHILD SEX OFFENCES CLOSING SPEECHES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DISCHARGE OF JURY PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY PROPORTIONALITY PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT 1985 s.19A s.41 SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR VICTIMS WASTED COSTS ORDERS YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.28

June 27, 2019

There was no general principle that delay, in a criminal trial involving young children, meant that the evidence of that child should always be excluded at a subsequent trial; each case was fact specific. In the instant case, a judge had been entitled to admit a child’s Achieving Best Evidence interview at trial despite the delay of two years and four months since the interview had taken place.

BEST EVIDENCE CHILDREN CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DELAY EXCLUSION RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13

October 16, 2018

The court considered issues relating to the impact of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.28 and the pre-recorded cross-examination of vulnerable child witnesses, and provided guidance regarding best practice for trial judges and advocates.

CASE MANAGEMENT CHILD SEX OFFENCES CHILDREN CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION JURY DIRECTIONS RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL SPECIAL MEASURES DIRECTIONS VIDEO RECORDINGS VULNERABLE AND INTIMIDATED WITNESSES

October 10, 2018

It was best practice for a judge to direct a jury before the cross-examination of a vulnerable witness that limitations had been placed on the defence counsel and to explain after the cross-examination the type of issues which the defendant would have wished to explore in further detail. Such directions should be repeated in the summing up.

CHILDREN CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CROSS-EXAMINATION FAMILIAL CHILD SEX OFFENCES JURY DIRECTIONS RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 SUMMING UP VULNERABLE AND INTIMIDATED WITNESSES

March 17, 2015

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

November 18, 2014

A trial for three specimen offences of sexual activity with a child had been fair, even though the complainant’s cross-examination was cut short due to her extreme distress. The defendant’s principal defence had been put to her, and there was other evidence upon which the jury could rely. The resulting sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was appropriate given that the defendant had committed numerous similar offences against the complainant while the sentencing guidelines were aimed at a single offence.

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION FAIRNESS OF TRIAL WHERE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT CUT SHORT DUE TO EXTREME DISTRESS RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SPECIMEN CHARGES

October 9, 2014

The court gave guidance on the procedure to be followed by the judge when deciding whether the cross-examination of a vulnerable witness was appropriate.

CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION HUMAN RIGHTS PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY JUDGE WHEN DETERMINING APPROPRIATENESS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL s.27(5) s.28 s.53 s.54 s.54(3) s.54(6) VIDEO EVIDENCE VULNERABLE AND INTIMIDATED WITNESSES YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.27

July 8, 2014

A conviction for rape was not unsafe on the basis that the judge should have permitted cross-examination of the victim about the falsity of previous allegations of sexual abuse by other men. The fact that the victim had made but not pursued those allegations did not provide a proper evidential basis for showing the falsity of those complaints for the purposes of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.100.

ADMISSIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.100(1)(b) CROSS-EXAMINATION LEAVE TO PERMIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS CONCERNING PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS PREVIOUS STATEMENTS RAPE RELEVANCE OF VICTIM’S PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT RELIABILITY s.100 s.42 s.42(1)(c) YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41

July 8, 2014

There was no basis on which to extend time to allow an offender to appeal against his convictions for rape, sexual assault, and causing or inciting a four-year-old child to engage in sexual activity. Although the normal trial process had had to be modified in a number of ways because of the victim’s age, the judge had taken great care to ensure that the trial was fair.

BEST EVIDENCE CAUSING CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION NO CASE TO ANSWER RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13

April 2, 2014

Where a 12-year-old complainant had alleged sexual abuse by her uncle, the trial judge had been entitled to refuse to allow her to be cross-examined about her previous sexual experience. What, if any, sexual experienceshe might have had was not an appropriate area of investigation and was not of substantial probative value in relation to whether she might have been lying about the conduct of her uncle .

ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.100 CROSS-EXAMINATION SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41

Previous Posts

Contact Stephen

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) 141 2800504.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 

"HISTORIC" OFFENCES ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST ADMISSIBILITY AGGRAVATING FEATURES ASSAULT BY PENETRATION ATTEMPTS BAD CHARACTER BUGGERY CAUSING CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY CHILDREN CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONSENT CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DANGEROUSNESS DELAY EXTENDED SENTENCES FRESH EVIDENCE GUILTY PLEAS HUMAN RIGHTS IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN JURY DIRECTIONS MINIMUM TERM PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS RAPE RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS SUMMING UP TOTALITY OF SENTENCE UNDUE LENIENCY YOUNG OFFENDERS