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)
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.