The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland overturned an appellant’s convictions on three out of eleven counts of historic sexual abuse on the basis that they were unsafe. It found the remainder to be safe, rejecting arguments that the judge had erred in permitting evidence of reprehensible behaviour and that a fair trial had been rendered impossible by the passage of time.
BAD CHARACTER CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY FRESH EVIDENCE INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS NORTHERN IRELAND
A judge receiving fresh prosecution evidence during the course of a trial might have put undue pressure on a defendant to change his plea by indicating that he would give a reasonable amount of credit if he did so. However, the incident could not lay the foundation for an allegation of bias because the defendant had continued to maintain his innocence and the judge had continued to conduct the trial entirely fairly.
ADMISSIBILITY BIAS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FALSE IMPRISONMENT FRESH EVIDENCE JUDGE RECEIVING FRESH EVIDENCE INDICATING REASONABLE CREDIT WOULD BE GIVEN IF DEFENDANT CHANGED PLEA JUDICIAL INDICATIONS JURY DIRECTIONS PROPENSITY SEXUAL ASSAULT SUMMING UP WHETHER JUDGE BIASED
It was appropriate to quash a conviction for attempted buggery and indecent assault where new evidence that cast doubt on the veracity of the victim’s evidence, that had not been presented at the offender’s trial, threw the safety of his conviction for indecent assault and attempted buggery into doubt.
BUGGERY CONVICTIONS CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FRESH EVIDENCE FRESH EVIDENCE UNDERMINING VICTIM’S CREDIBILITY INDECENT ASSAULT SAFETY
Where the convictions of two men for unconnected sexual offences involving the same victim had been quashed, but only one of the men was paid compensation under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.133, the secretary of state had not acted illegally or irrationally in his application of developing case law. The court surveyed the meaning of “miscarriage of justice” in s.133 of the Act in the light of those cases.
COMPENSATION CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 s.133 CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FRESH EVIDENCE INDECENCY INDECENT ASSAULT MEANING OF “MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE” IN S.133 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE s.13 s.133(1) WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
A conviction for offences of rape and indecent assault of a child was safe despite fresh evidence that questioned the basis for the expert medical evidence at trial, as it did not undermine the evidence and credibility of the victim.
ADMISSIBILITY APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968 s.23(1) CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW EFFECT OF FRESH EXPERT EVIDENCE ON SAFETY OF CONVICTION EXPERT EVIDENCE FRESH EVIDENCE INDECENT ASSAULT MEDICAL EVIDENCE RAPE RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD s.2(3) s.23(2) s.23(2)(a) s.23(2)(d) SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN
Convictions for indecent assault and gross indecency were unsafe where fresh evidence concerning the sexual function and erectile problems of a participant in the alleged abuse might, if accepted by the jury, have affected its decision to convict the accused as it was capable of providing independent evidence that the complainant’s allegations were not true.
CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968 s.23 CRIMINAL EVIDENCE FRESH EVIDENCE FRESH EVIDENCE RELATING TO ERECTILE PROBLEMS OF PARTICIPANT IN ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE IMPACT ON SAFETY OF CONVICTIONS POSSIBLE EFFECT ON COMPLAINANT’S CREDIBILITY SEXUAL OFFENCES
Fresh evidence did not render a conviction for rape unsafe as the evidence, which related to an alleged assault on the complainant when she was younger, would not have affected the complainant’s credibility in the eyes of the jury. Further, there was no reasonable explanation for the defence not to have adduced the evidence at trial.
ADMISSIBILITY CONSENT CREDIBILITY CREDIBILITY OF COMPLAINANT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE FALSE ACCOUNT OF SEXUAL ASSAULT FRESH EVIDENCE INCONSISTENT EVIDENCE ABOUT ALLEGED PREVIOUS ASSAULT ON COMPLAINANT RAPE REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR NOT ADDUCING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
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.