Despite a substantial delay in applying for judicial review, it was in the public interest to quash a court’s decision purporting to lift a sexual offender’s notification requirements. The court lacked power to make that order, and the grant of relief upheld the rule of law and ensured that all applications to life notification requirements were dealt with under the same procedure.
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT LIFTING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON SEXUAL OFFENDER WITHOUT HAVING POWER TO DO SO DELAY EFFECT OF SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN BRINGING JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY Pt 1 PUBLIC INTEREST RULE OF LAW s.104(1) s.109(3) s.81 s.81(1) s.81(3) s.82(1) s.91 s.91A s.91A(1) s.91B s.91B(1) s.91B(2)(a) s.91B(8)(b) s.91C s.91D(2) s.91E Sch.3 SENTENCING SEX OFFENDERS ACT 1997 s.1 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.80
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
The court determined the correct approach to sentencing in respect of sexual offences committed many years ago but only recently brought to conviction.
APPROACH TO SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES COMMITTED MANY YEARS AGO BUT ONLY RECENTLY BROUGHT TO CONVICTION art.7(1) DATE OF OFFENCE DELAY EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.7 HUMAN RIGHTS RETROSPECTIVE PENALTIES SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SENTENCING POWERS SEXUAL OFFENCES
Deficiencies in a judge’s summing up were such as to render a conviction for historic child sex offences unsafe.
BUGGERY CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY EFFECT OF DEFICIENCIES IN SUMMING UP ON SAFETY OF CONVICTION FOR HISTORIC CHILD SEX OFFENCES GOOD CHARACTER INDECENCY JURY DIRECTIONS LUCAS DIRECTIONS SUMMING UP
Convictions for rape, kidnap and doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice were safe despite a delay of several years between the allegations and the trial. The trial judge had been right to refuse a submission of no case to answer and had clearly directed the jury on the possible prejudice caused to the offenders by the delay.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY DELAY OF SEVERAL YEARS BETWEEN ALLEGATION OF RAPE AND TRIAL DIRECTIONS NO CASE TO ANSWER PREJUDICE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OF DELAY RAPE
Convictions for five counts of rape and one count of indecent assault were safe, as there were no particular circumstances that required the judge to have given directions relating to the age of the victims, delay, an elaborated good character direction, or a recent complaint direction.
AGE CHILDREN CRIMINAL EVIDENCE DELAY EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS ON SAFETY OF CONVICTIONS EXPERT EVIDENCE INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS RAPE RAPE AND INDECENT ASSAULT RECENT COMPLAINT VYE DIRECTIONS
In a case where two children had delayed in complaining of sexual abuse by their stepfather, the judge had not gone beyond the bounds of permissible comment when setting out a number of possible reasons for the delay in disclosure.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY INDECENT ASSAULT RAPE SUMMING UP
The judge’s summing up had devalued the importance of the effect of the delay between the offences and trial. In the particular circumstances of the case a direction should have been given, warning the jury of convicting the appellant of sexual offences without independent supporting evidence.
ALLEGATIONS OF HISTORIC SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH YOUNG GIRLS COMPLAINTS CORROBORATION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY DIRECTIONS INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS NEED FOR INDEPENDENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE PREJUDICE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OF SUBSTANTIAL DELAY BETWEEN OFFENCES AND TRIAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SUMMING UP UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WARNINGS ON CORROBORATION AND DELAY
Investigations discontinued prior to April 1 1997 did not amount to a criminal investigation invoking the committal regime under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Part I . However a hybrid committal could take place if previous investigations had been put on hold and resurrected following the 1996 Act coming into force.
ABUSE OF PROCESS ADVERSE INFERENCES BUGGERY CARE WORKERS COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL COMMITTALS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 s.34 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 CROSS-ADMISSIBILITY DELAY FAILURE TO MENTION FACTS INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS JURY DIRECTIONS AS TO ADVERSE INFERENCES AND CROSS ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE LOCAL AUTHORITY RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAGISTRATES’ COURTS ACT 1980 MANIFESLTLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCE PARTI CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 RAPE RESIDENTIAL CARE S.34 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEVERANCE SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES COMMITTED AT LOCAL AUTHORITY RESIDENTIAL CENTRE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS SUMMING UP
There was nothing in the applicants circumstances making it unfair or oppressive now to return him to New Zealand to stand trial for serious sexual offences involving abuse of his position of trust as a priest and a teacher.
20 YEARS ELAPSED SINCE ALLEGED OFFENCES ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST ADMINISTRATIVE LAW BUGGERY COMMITTAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY EXTRADITION EXTRADITION ACT 1989 s.11 FAIR TRIALS HABEAS CORPUS INDECENT ASSAULTS MINORS OPPRESSIVE PASSAGE OF TIME POSSIBILITY OF FAIR TRIAL PRIESTS s.11(3)(b) S.11(3)(B) EXTRADITION ACT 1989 s.9(8) SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES TEACHERS UNFAIR YOUNG MEN
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.