In a case in which the defendant failed to mention in interview a matter on which he later relied in his defence, but that matter was one which the jury might find to be a lie in any event, the judge was right to give a direction which combined elements of a Lucas direction and a direction under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.34.
CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 s.34 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FALSE STATEMENTS JURY DIRECTIONS LUCAS DIRECTIONS RAPE SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING
A conviction for the sexual assault of a teenage friend of the appellant’s daughter was safe where the jury had been careful to convict only on the count for which there was some support from other witnesses and from the content of a text message sent after the incident.
CORROBORATION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE GOOD CHARACTER JURY DIRECTIONS SEXUAL ASSAULT
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
An offender’s conviction for assault by penetration of the vagina had not been inconsistent with his acquittal for offences of attempted rape and sexual assault by anal penetration. Nor could his conviction be overturned on the grounds that the judge had given the jury a Watson direction at the same time as a majority verdict direction, as there was no evidence that the jury had been pressured into delivering compromise verdicts.
ASSAULT BY PENETRATION CONVICTIONS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS JURY DIRECTIONS MAJORITY VERDICTS OFFENDER CHARGED WITH THREE COUNTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ON YOUNG WOMAN SAFETY OF CONVICTION SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.2 WATSON DIRECTION GIVEN AT SAME TIME AS MAJORITY VERDICT DIRECTION WATSON DIRECTIONS WHETHER CONVICTION ON ONE COUNT INCONSISTENT WITH ACQUITTAL ON OTHER TWO COUNTS
A jury had been given adequate directions in relation to the issue of consent before it found a defendant guilty of rape, assault by penetration and sexual assault following a sexual encounter at a party between the defendant and a woman who was heavily intoxicated. The judge had fully dealt with the elements of capacity and it had not been necessary for him to indicate that a drunken consent remained a consent.
CONSENT CORRECT JURY DIRECTION IN RELATION TO CAPACITY TO CONSENT BY INTOXICATED COMPLAINANT CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INTOXICATION JURY DIRECTIONS RAPE SUMMING UP
A recorder had not erred in refusing a defence application to cross-examine a rape victim pursuant to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41 in order to question her regarding her sexual relationship with another man.
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION JURY DIRECTIONS OFFENDER CLAIMING INJURY OCCURRED LATER OFFENDER INJURING PENIS DURING RAPE RAPE RECORDER REFUSING APPLICATION TO QUESTION VICTIM UNDER S.41 YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.13(1) s.41(3) s.41(5) s.41(5)(a) s.42 SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.1(1) VICTIMS YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41
An appeal against convictions on 12 counts of sexual assault by penetration, four counts of rape and a count of unlawful wounding was dismissed where a judge had been correct not to treat as evidence the offender’s admissions made in a written statement and police interview as the prosecution had only relied on them to a very limited extent.
ADMISSIONS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JURY DIRECTIONS NATURE OF MIXED STATEMENTS POLICE INTERVIEWS SEXUAL OFFENCES SUMMING UP WHETHER NEED FOR WARNING EVIDENCE NOT GIVEN ON OATH
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
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
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.