A judge had been correct in not permitting a defendant to cross-examine a complainant concerning a telephone recording where the complainant had allegedly confessed to murder, as it was not relevant to the issues in the case, namely whether the complainant had consented to intercourse, and fabricated evidence.
BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.100 CROSS-EXAMINATION INTIMIDATION OF WITNESSES PROPENSITY RAPE RELEVANCE
A recorder had not erred in refusing a defence application to cross-examine a rape victim pursuant to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41 in order to question her regarding her sexual relationship with another man.
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION JURY DIRECTIONS OFFENDER CLAIMING INJURY OCCURRED LATER OFFENDER INJURING PENIS DURING RAPE RAPE RECORDER REFUSING APPLICATION TO QUESTION VICTIM UNDER S.41 YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.13(1) s.41(3) s.41(5) s.41(5)(a) s.42 SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.1(1) VICTIMS YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41
Although part of prosecuting counsel’s cross-examination of a rape defendant, related to bad character and based on inadmissible hearsay evidence, had been misjudged and regrettable, it had not affected the overall fairness of the proceedings or the safety of the verdict.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CAUTIONS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DETENTION FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION EFFECT ON OVERALL FAIRNESS OF PROCEEDINGS AND SAFETY OF CONVICTION HEARSAY EVIDENCE INTRODUCTION OF INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF RAPE DEFENDANT RAPE SENTENCING SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN YOUNG OFFENDERS
A conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.9 could not be substituted for a conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1), as the indictment based on the 1956 Act could not be said to expressly or impliedly include an allegation of an offence under s.9 of the 2003 Act.
ALTERNATIVE OFFENCES CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968 s.3 CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DEFECTS GROSS INDECENCY INDECENT ASSAULT INDICTMENT DID NOT EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY INCLUDE ALLEGATION OF OFFENCE UNDER NEW ACT INDICTMENT REFERRING TO REPEALED ACT INDICTMENTS JURY DIRECTIONS s.41 s.41(2) s.41(3) s.41(4) SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.14(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.9 SUBSTITUTION OF CONVICTION UNDER NEW ACT YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41(1)
Although cross-examination which had invited impermissible speculation by the defendant should not have been allowed, that was insufficient to support a conclusion that his conviction for rape, buggery and indecent assault was unsafe, there being no other basis on which to undermine the jury’s acceptance of the significant DNA evidence.
ADMISSIBILITY APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION FOR HISTORIC SEXUAL ASSAULT BASED ON DNA EVIDENCE BUGGERY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DNA EVIDENCE EFFECT ON SAFETY OF CONVICTION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT INVITING IMPERMISSIBLE SPECULATION INDECENT ASSAULT RAPE s.14(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.12(1) SUMMING UP
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)
Where an appellant relied on honest belief that the victim to an indecent assault was willing to consent, whilst evidence of the victim’s previous sexual behaviour was relevant to that belief the judge had a discretion whether to allow cross-examination and had to take into account whether refusal might render the conclusion of the jury unsafe.
CONSENT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW CROSS-EXAMINATION DEFENDANT SEEKING TO CROSS EXAMINE VICTIM ON BEHAVIOUR IN NIGHTCLUB DISCRETION HONEST BELIEF INDECENT ASSAULT PREVIOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR RELEVANCE TO DEFENCE S.41 YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999
In a trial in respect of a number of sexual offences, an application to cross-examine the complainant about what she had said in the past concerning her previous relationships with men was rightly rejected as being contrary to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41 . There was nothing inconsistent with guilty verdicts where sexual acts had been admitted, and acquittals where the sexual act itself had been denied and the issue had been consent.
ACQUITTALS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION EXAMINATION OF PREVIOUS SEXUAL HISTORY INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INDECENT ASSAULT ISSUE OF CONSENT RAPE S.41 YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 SEXUAL ACTS ADMITTED SEXUAL OFFENCES STATEMENTS OF SEXUAL HISTORY
The defendant’s conviction was unsafe as the judge had wrongly refused an application for leave to cross-examine the victim, and had put to the defendant, evidence of previous sexual acts of a similar nature. The judge’s attention had wrongly been drawn to s.41(3)(c)(ii) Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 when the matter should have been considered under s.41(3)(c)(i).
COMPLAINANT’S PREVIOUS SIMILAR CONSENSUAL BEHAVIOUR WITH ACCUSED CONSENT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CROSS EXAMINATION ON PREVIOUS CONSENSUAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION EVIDENCE FALSE IMPRISONMENT INDECENT ASSAULT RAPE s.14(2) s.41 s.41(1) s.41(1)(2) s.41(2) s.41(3)(a) s.41(3)(b) s.41(3)(c) S.41(3)(C) YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41(3)(c)(i) s.43(3)(ii) SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR SEXUAL OFFENCES SIMILAR CONSENSUAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR STRIKING SIMILARITY TIME YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 S.41(3)(C)(I) AND (II) YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41(3)(c)(ii)
A judge had exercised his discretion fairly under s.41 Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 by ruling as admissible certain evidence about sexual abuse on complainant children by persons other than their parents against whom criminal proceedings had been brought.
ABUSE ADMISSIBILITY APPEALS CHILDREN COMPLAINTS CONVICTIONS CREDIT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DISCRETION EXCLUSION EXERCISE GUILT INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS INDECENCY WITH A CHILD INDECENT ASSAULT INNOCENCE INTERVIEW JURY LEAVE MISCONDUCT OTHERS PACE 1984 PARENTS PERMISSION PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY PROOF QUESTIONING RELEVANCE RIGHT TO QUESTION CHILD WITNESSES IN RELATION TO PRIOR COMPLAINTS OF ABUSE S.41 YOUTH AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.42(1)(c) S.78 POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 SEXUAL OFFENCES UNSAFE VIDEOS YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41
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.