There was no logical inconsistency between an offender’s conviction on two counts of indecent assault upon a girl, and the jury’s acquittal in relation to the remaining 16 counts on the indictment.
There was no logical inconsistency between an offender’s conviction on two counts of indecent assault upon a girl, and the jury’s acquittal in relation to the remaining 16 counts on the indictment.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HISTORICAL SEXUAL OFFENCES INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INDECENT ASSAULT JURIES NO LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY IN VERDICTS WITNESS EVIDENCE
Inconsistent jury verdicts on one count of vaginal rape and one count of oral rape, arising out of same incident and given following a direction sanctioned by R. v Watson (Darren Antonio) [1988] Q.B. 690, were an unacceptable compromise and consequently unsafe.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INCONSISTENT VERDICTS ON SEPARATE COUNTS OF RAPE ARISING OUT OF SAME INCIDENT JURY DIRECTIONS MAJORITY VERDICTS RAPE SAFETY OF CONVICTION SEXUAL OFFENCES UNSAFE CONVICTIONS WATSON DIRECTION WATSON DIRECTIONS
A finding of guilt on one count could not be inconsistent with a failure to reach a verdict on another count as no verdict had been reached on that count.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FAILURE TO REACH VERDICT HISTORICAL SEXUAL OFFENCES INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INDECENT ASSAULT JURIES
Where a trial proceeded on the basis that different counts of criminal liability required separate consideration and there was a difference in the cogency of detail in the evidence on the different counts, a decision of the jury was not unlawful due to inconsistency where an offender was found guilty on a count of indecency with a child but acquitted on counts of rape.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONSISTENCY OF JURY VERDICTS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS JURIES MULTIPLE COUNTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY SENTENCING STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE SUMMING UP SUSPENDED SENTENCES WITNESSES
A jury had not reached inconsistent verdicts by acquitting an offender on one count of rape of his niece but finding him guilty on another as there were grounds on which it could have reached different views on the offences, including the age of the victim at the time of each alleged offence.
AGE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS JURY ACQUITTED OFFENDER OF ONE RAPE OF TEENAGE NIECE BUT CONVICTED HIM OF ANOTHER RAPE
An appeal against five convictions for indecent assault failed, where the defendant had been acquitted of one further count of indecent assault and where the jury had been unable to agree on two others. There was no logical inconsistency between the verdicts.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONVICTIONS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INDECENT ASSAULT LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN VERDICTS SEVERAL COUNTS OF INDECENT ASSAULT SUPPLY OF DRUGS
In relation to a charge of possessing indecent photographs of a child, a jury had been well aware of the issues it had to assess in considering whether a defendant knew that there was a likelihood that automatic “pop-up” mechanisms or redirections to other websites on legal, albeit pornographic, websites would occur and whether if, upon accessing the legal website, the “pop-ups” would contain separate illegal images.
COMPUTERS CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN INTENTION JURY DELIBERATIONS POP-UP WINDOWS PORNOGRAPHY POSSESSION POSSESSION OF IMAGES SEXUAL OFFENCES WEBSITES
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
Where a defendant faced several counts of sexual offences on the same victim, the jury’s verdicts could not be said to be inconsistent where it had convicted the defendant on the only count that had supporting evidence.
ACQUITTAL ON MAJORITY OF COUNTS CARER CEREBRAL PALSY CONVICTION SAFE CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW INCONSISTENCY WITH CONVICTION ON SINGLE COUNT INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INDECENT ASSAULT JURIES JURY TRIAL MALE VICTIM SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WITNESSES
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) 141 2800504.