Bad character evidence in respect of complainants in sexual assault allegations had been properly excluded where a judge had decided that it lacked substantial probative value as it did not establish a propensity towards general untruthfulness. That exclusion avoided the inevitable, grossly prejudicial, admission of the accused’s previous convictions for sexual offences.
ADMISSIBILITY ATTACKS ON CHARACTER BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.100 CRIMINAL LAW PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS Pt 1 s.100(1)(b) s.101 s.101(1)(d) s.101(1)(g) s.3 SEX OFFENDERS SEXUAL ASSAULT WHETHER JUDGE PROPERLY EXCLUDED COMPLAINANTS’ BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE
A judge had not erred in refusing to sever an indictment containing counts relating to separate incidents of murder and sexual assault. The incidents were broadly similar and close in time and there were a number of very significant similarities. The issue as to whether they were wholly disconnected was a matter for the jury.
ADMISSIBILITY COINCIDENCE CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2014 r.14.2(3) CROSS-ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE INDICTMENTS MURDER Pt 1 s.103 s.3 s.31 s.53 SEVERANCE SEXUAL ASSAULT SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ATTACKS ON YOUNG FEMALE VICTIMS
It had been open to a jury to be satisfied on the evidence that alleged historic child sexual abuse had continued into the period on the indictment. It was not open to the Court of Appeal to review the evidence and come to a different conclusion.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES CHILD SEX OFFENCES CHILD SEXUAL OFFENCES COMMITTED 30 YEARS AGO COMMUNITY ORDERS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 Pt 3 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INDECENCY MATTERS FOR THE JURY NO CASE TO ANSWER POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS (SENTENCING) ACT 2000 s.41 Pt 1 Pt 2 Pt 4 SENTENCING
Despite a substantial delay in applying for judicial review, it was in the public interest to quash a court’s decision purporting to lift a sexual offender’s notification requirements. The court lacked power to make that order, and the grant of relief upheld the rule of law and ensured that all applications to life notification requirements were dealt with under the same procedure.
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT LIFTING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON SEXUAL OFFENDER WITHOUT HAVING POWER TO DO SO DELAY EFFECT OF SUBSTANTIAL DELAY IN BRINGING JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY Pt 1 PUBLIC INTEREST RULE OF LAW s.104(1) s.109(3) s.81 s.81(1) s.81(3) s.82(1) s.91 s.91A s.91A(1) s.91B s.91B(1) s.91B(2)(a) s.91B(8)(b) s.91C s.91D(2) s.91E Sch.3 SENTENCING SEX OFFENDERS ACT 1997 s.1 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.80
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.