The court upheld an offender’s convictions for indecent assault and attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm committed against his younger brother when they were both under 18. It could not be said that the manner in which the trial was conducted by the offender’s own counsel was so flawed as to render his conviction unsafe.
ATTEMPTS AUTISTIC SPECTRUM DISORDER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DEFENCE COUNSEL GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM INDECENT ASSAULT ORAL EVIDENCE PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE
A judge had been wrong to undertake a trial of an issue concerning a defendant’s alleged conduct prior to an offence that had neither been admitted nor proved by verdict and further erred in using his findings against that defendant to form the basis of an assessment of dangerousness under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, in the circumstances, the judge was correct to impose imprisonment for public protection.
ASSESSMENT OF DANGEROUSNESS CHILD ABDUCTION CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991 s.2 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.229 CRIMINAL LAW DANGEROUSNESS GUILTY PLEAS IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION LEGISLATIVE INTENTION Part 2 PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE RESTRICTIONS RISK OF REOFFENDING s.224(3) s.225 s.225(2) s.225(3) s.229(2) s.229(2)(b) s.229(2)(c) SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SENTENCING WITHOUT PRIOR JUDGMENT SEXUAL ASSAULT TRIAL OF ISSUE CONCERNING PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS TRIAL WITHOUT JURY TRIALS OF ISSUE
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.