The absolute discharge of a mentally-impaired defendant following convictions for indecent assault committed many years in the past was unduly lenient in that it failed sufficiently to take into account the interests of the victims.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE APPROPRIATE DISPOSAL TO REFLECT VICTIMS’ INTERESTS COMMUNITY REHABILITATION ORDERS COMMUNITY SENTENCE DIGITAL PENETRATION DIGITAL PENETRATION OF VICTIMS’ VAGINAS GUILTY PLEAS INDECENT ASSAULT MENTAL IMPAIRMENT MENTALLY-IMPAIRED OFFENDER SENTENCING UNDUE LENIENCY YOUNG OFFENDERS
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
It was impermissible for the Crown to prosecute a charge of indecent assault under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1) in circumstances where the conduct upon which that charge was based was only an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 16 in respect of which no prosecution could be commenced under s.6(1) of the Act by virtue of s.37(2) of, and Sch.2 to, that Act.
ABUSE OF PROCESS ALTERNATIVE PROSECUTION FOR INDECENT ASSAULT IMPERMISSIBLE AVOIDANCE OF STATUTORY TIME BAR FOR PROSECUTION OF OFFENCE CHILD SEX OFFENCES CHILDREN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROWN PROSECUTION DELAYED COMPLAINTS INDECENT ASSAULT LIMITATION PERIODS LIMITATIONS MINORS POLICIES PROSECUTION OF DIFFERENT CHARGE IN RELIANCE ON SAME CRIMINAL CONDUCT PROSECUTIONS s.10 s.14 S.14(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.37 S.37 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.37(1) s.37(1)(2) s.37(2) s.4 s.44 s.5 s.5(1) s.6 s.6(1) S.6(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.7 Sch.2 para.10(a) SCH.2 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH GIRL UNDER 16 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.14(1) TIME BARS TIME LIMIT FOR CHARGE OF UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE EXPIRED ULTRA VIRES
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)
Investigations discontinued prior to April 1 1997 did not amount to a criminal investigation invoking the committal regime under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Part I . However a hybrid committal could take place if previous investigations had been put on hold and resurrected following the 1996 Act coming into force.
ABUSE OF PROCESS ADVERSE INFERENCES BUGGERY CARE WORKERS COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL COMMITTALS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 s.34 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 CROSS-ADMISSIBILITY DELAY FAILURE TO MENTION FACTS INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS JURY DIRECTIONS AS TO ADVERSE INFERENCES AND CROSS ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE LOCAL AUTHORITY RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAGISTRATES’ COURTS ACT 1980 MANIFESLTLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCE PARTI CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 RAPE RESIDENTIAL CARE S.34 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEVERANCE SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES COMMITTED AT LOCAL AUTHORITY RESIDENTIAL CENTRE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS SUMMING UP
A two year suspended sentence for offences of indecent assault, indecency with a child and buggery was unduly lenient. Taking into account that the defendant was 66 years old at the time of trial and the principle of double jeopardy, the sentence would be quashed and a sentence of four years’ imprisonment substituted.
ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST BREACH OF TRUST BUGGERY CHILDREN CRIMINAL LAW DIFFICULT SENTENCING EXERCISE ILL HEALTH INDECENT ASSAULT SENTENCING SEXUAL ABUSE SUSPENDED SENTENCES THREE YEAR SEXUAL ABUSE OF BOY AGED BETWEEN 10 AND 13 UNDUE LENIENCY
A total sentence of eight years’ imprisonment for indecent assault and inflicting grievous bodily harm on an 83-year-old victim was manifestly excessive. The judge failed to give the appropriate discount for the defendant’s early pleas of guilty, and the indecent assault was not of the worst kind.
ALCOHOL ABUSE CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL RECORD DISCOUNT FOR EARLY GUILTY PLEAS EARLY GUILTY PLEAS ELDERLY PERSONS GBH GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM GUILTY PLEAS INDECENT ASSAULT MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCES SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCING
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
The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal an extended licence period of five years for sex offences was refused, as subsequent case law did not apply retrospectively.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EXTENDED LICENCE PERIODS EXTENDED SENTENCES EXTENSION OF TIME GROSS INDECENCY INDECENT ASSAULT LEAVE TO APPEAL MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT SENTENCING
The appellant’s convictions for indecent assaults against young girls over 30 years ago were safe. His sentence would be reduced from seven years to four and a half years as these were not the most serious offences of their kind.
ADMISSIBILITY ALIBI DIRECTION ALIBIS APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE LENGTH CHARACTER DIRECTION CIVIL EVIDENCE COLLUSION OF WITNESSES CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL APPEALS CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 s.23 CRIMINAL LAW DELAY DELAY BETWEEN OFFENCES AND TRIAL FAILURE TO GIVE ALIBI DIRECTION HEARSAY HEARSAY EVIDENCE INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT ASSAULTS AGAINST CHILDREN JUDGE’S DIRECTIONS JURY DIRECTIONS LEAVE TO ADDUCE HEARSAY EVIDENCE REFUSED PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROPENSITY SELECTIVE INTRODUCTION SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES TIME WITNESS STATEMENTS
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.