In response to concerns that the principle of double jeopardy was no longer referred to in judgments of the Court of Appeal in references made by the Attorney General, the court expressed its view that, although the double jeopardy principle remained for consideration in the kind of case identified in Attorney General’s Reference (Nos 14 […]
Where there had been confusion during the jury’s return of verdicts on four counts of an indictment against two co-defendants, and a verdict against a count of kidnap was not formally entered against one defendant, that defendant had not been convicted of kidnap. The court therefore ordered the Crown Court record to be amended accordingly […]
A judge had not failed to direct a jury properly on the burden and standard of proof in relation to offences of false imprisonment, assault occasioning bodily harm and rape where he had effectively directed the jury that they had to make a choice whether to believe the evidence of the complainant or the defendants.
A sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of a senior police officer who had been convicted of a number of sexual offences against his wife and teenage boys. In a case of this nature, where the offending spanned a long period of time and where there had been significant changes in […]
Guilty verdicts on two sample counts of rape relating to a six-year period were logically inconsistent with acquittals on four specific counts of rape against the same victim. A reasonable jury could not, on the paucity of the stand-alone evidence concerning the sample counts, be sure of guilt in relation to them if they rejected […]
A medical expert’s opinion that a 15-year-old girl’s injury to her hymen was diagnostic of blunt force trauma from sexual penetration had not been materially inaccurate and had not misled the jury in the trial of the appellant for raping the girl.
A trial judge had correctly ruled that the contents of a conversation revealing details about a rape victim’s previous sexual behaviour were not admissible under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41.
A rape victim’s evidence that she had little memory of the events was not sufficient for the judge to remove the case from the jury. There had been sufficient evidence for the jury to decide whether the victim had consented.
On the facts of the case, the defendant’s conviction for rape was not rendered unsafe by the judge’s failure, after acceding to a request from the jury for the replaying of the complainant’s ABE interview, to warn the jury not to place too much emphasis on what they had seen during the recording since they […]
A conviction for attempted rape was quashed following the admission of new DNA evidence taken from clothing worn by the victim at the time of the offence.
