It had not been an abuse of process to prosecute an elderly man for an historic offence of sexual assault which had been committed against a seven-year-old family member. The 23-year delay between the offence and trial did not of itself justify a stay of prosecution, and the judge had been entitled to determine that the offender, who suffered from dementia and other physical ailments, was fit to plead and stand trial.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES ABUSE OF PROCESS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY FITNESS TO PLEAD SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13
A jury’s findings on a trial of the facts that a defendant with severe learning difficulties who was unfit to plead had committed two offences of rape were safe, notwithstanding the fact that an extract of the defendant’s police interview had been wrongly admitted as evidence.
ADMISSIBILITY CASE MANAGEMENT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2013 DEFENDANT WITH SEVERE LEARNING DIFFICULTIES AND UNFIT TO PLEAD EXTRACT OF POLICE INTERVIEW WRONGLY ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE ON TRIAL OF FACTS FINDINGS OF FACT FITNESS TO PLEAD LEARNING DISABLED PERSONS LUCAS DIRECTIONS MENTAL HEALTH MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS POLICE INTERVIEWS RAPE RAPE ALLEGATIONS SAFETY OF JURY’S FINDINGS SEXUAL OFFENCES AGAINST MENTALLY DISORDERED PERSONS
In determining under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 s.4A(2) whether a defendant, who was unfit to stand trial, was guilty of voyeurism the jury had to be satisfied that he had deliberately observed another person doing a private act for the purpose of his own sexual gratification.
ACTUS REUS AUTISTIC OFFENDER UNFIT TO PLEAD OR STAND TRIAL CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 s.4A(2) ELEMENTS OF OFFENCE TO BE PROVEN FOR PURPOSE OF S.4A(2) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 FITNESS TO PLEAD INSANITY MENTAL HEALTH Pt 2 s.104 s.104(1) s.104(1)(a) s.104(1)(b) s.104(3)(b) s.110(1)(b) s.2(1) s.3 s.4 s.4(5) s.4(5)(6) s.4A s.5 s.5(1)(a) s.5(2)(b) s.67 s.67(1)(b) s.68(1) s.68(1)(a) s.80(1)(c) s.82 Sch.3 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.67(1) TRIAL OF LUNATICS ACT 1883 s.2 VOYEURISM
Where an accused convicted of indecent assault of a man had mistakenly been charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1) instead of s.15(1) and had been found unfit to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 s.4A, the conviction was unsafe. Section 4A clearly stated that the jury had to be satisfied that the accused had done the act charged. Even though the indictment particulars were accurate, the actus reus of indecent assault on a woman could not be established by an indecent assault on a man.
ACCUSED MISTAKENLY CHARGED WITH INDECENT ASSAULT OF WOMAN ACCUSED UNFIT TO STAND TRIAL FOR INDECENT ASSAULT OF MAN ACTUS REUS OF INDECENT ASSAULT OF WOMAN NOT ESTABLISHED BY INDECENT ASSAULT OF A MAN. BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968 s.15 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 s.4A FITNESS TO PLEAD INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS MISTAKE RETRIALS s.15(1) s.16 s.16(1)(b) s.16(4) s.161 s.3 s.4 s.41 s.4A(2) s.4A(2)(b) s.5 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.14(1) SUMMING UP UNSAFE CONVICTIONS
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.