A judge’s refusal to hold a fact-finding hearing to clarify whether a father, who had been allowed unsupervised contact with his children, had committed indecent assault many years earlier could not be criticised.
A judge’s refusal to hold a fact-finding hearing to clarify whether a father, who had been allowed unsupervised contact with his children, had committed indecent assault many years earlier could not be criticised.
CHILDREN CRIMINAL LAW FAMILY LAW FAMILY PROCEEDINGS HEARINGS INDECENT ASSAULT PARENTAL CONTACT SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
New evidence as to a complainant’s reliability and truthfulness, which was not disclosed at the trial in 2001 of a man charged with indecently assaulting under-age children and attempted buggery of an under-age boy when he worked at children’s homes in the 1970s, would not have affected the safety of his convictions even if it had been admissible.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES BUGGERY CHILD SEX OFFENCES CHILDREN’S HOMES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.114 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EFFECT ON SAFETY OF CONVICTIONS INDECENT ASSAULT NEW EVIDENCE AS TO COMPLAINANTS’ CREDIBILITY AND RELIABILITY PROSECUTION DISCLOSURE YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41
A total sentence of four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender following his conviction for a number of sexual offences committed against his stepdaughter over a five-year period was unduly lenient. The sentence was increased to seven years’ imprisonment.
ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 BY PENETRATION INDECENT ASSAULT SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.14 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.9 TOTALITY OF SENTENCE UNDUE LENIENCY
An offender’s convictions for historic offences of rape, buggery, attempted rape, indecent assault and murder were deemed safe, as the judge had given the jury adequate directions as to the dangers of delay and its effect on the evidence.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSION OF HISTORIC EVIDENCE ATTEMPTS BUGGERY CONFESSIONS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY EFFECT ON FAIRNESS OF TRIAL INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS MURDER POLICE INTERVIEWS PREJUDICE RAPE SEXUAL OFFENCES SIGNIFICANT DELAY IN CHARGING OFFENDER
A 30-year delay on the part of a complainant did not render an offender’s convictions for indecent assault, indecency with a child, and rape unsafe as the judge had sufficiently dealt with any prejudice to the offender in his summing up and directions to the jury and there had been other evidence that supported the complainant’s evidence.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES 30-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN INCIDENT GIVING RISE TO ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAINANT’S ALLEGATIONS ABUSE OF PROCESS BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW DELAY FAIRNESS INDECENCY INDECENT ASSAULT PREJUDICE TO OFFENDER PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROPENSITY RAPE SAFETY OF CONVICTIONS SEXUAL OFFENCES STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
A sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, for six counts of gross indecency with a child was unduly lenient where the offender’s lack of contrition had seriously aggravated his offending, and was replaced with two years and three months’ imprisonment, not suspended.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES GOOD CHARACTER INDECENCY INDECENT ASSAULT OFFENDER TAKING NAKED PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN SENTENCING SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE UNDUE LENIENCY
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 sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment imposed for 14 historic indecent assaults was unduly lenient and was increased to one of 30 months. Even though the offender, a highly regarded television and radio presenter with no previous convictions, was 83 years old, in poor health, and had not offended for over 25 years, the original sentence did not reflect the offences’ criminality given their lifelong impact on the victims and public concern over sexual crimes against children and young victims.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST AGE AGGRAVATING FEATURES CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONSIDERATION OF VICTIMS’ WISHES DOUBLE PUNISHMENT ELDERLY MAN GUILTY OF 14 HISTORIC SEXUAL ASSAULTS ON GIRLS GUILTY PLEAS INDECENT ASSAULT MANIPULATION OF MEDIA MITIGATION PUBLIC INTEREST SENTENCING UNDUE LENIENCY VICTIMS
A trial judge had a wide discretion as to what warning, if any, he gave to a jury in relation to a witness’s alleged unreliability. In the instant case, the judge had given an adequate and appropriate warning to the jury with regard to the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and an admitted lie, and the offender’s conviction for indecent assault and rape was safe.
CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DISCRETION INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS LIE TOLD BY COMPLAINANT LUCAS DIRECTIONS RAPE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 STRENGTH OF WARNING TO JURY AS TO NEED FOR CAUTION WITNESSES
Where there had been a long delay in bringing a prosecution for indecent assaults, the effect of the delay on the perpetrator’s identification was often best addressed by a short, self-contained direction that focused on the defendant. Although a judge’s direction on the effect of delay on the identification of a Buddhist monk who had sexually assaulted a nine-year old girl in a temple 34 years ago had not been structured in the most appropriate way, it had not amounted to a misdirection and the resulting convictions for indecent assault were safe.
APPROPRIATENESS OF DIRECTION AS TO EFFECT OF DELAY ON IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2005 r.3.2 DELAY DELAY IN BRINGING PROSECUTION FOR INDECENT ASSAULTS IDENTIFICATION INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING WHETHER SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE
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.