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
It had not been logically inconsistent for a jury to find a man accused of sexual activity with a child guilty of having intercourse with her but not guilty of digitally penetrating her as they were separate incidents and the surrounding circumstances of the latter might have led the jury to be not sure beyond a reasonable doubt.
ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS CONSENT CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF INTERCOURSE WITH CHILD INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INDICTMENTS NO INCONSISTENCY NOT GUILTY OF DIGITAL PENETRATION RAPE SEPARATE INCIDENTS SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN
An error on an indictment in respect of the date of the Act under which a charge of rape had been made was a procedural error that caused no prejudice and did not render the indictment or the trial a nullity, as the offender had been aware of the case he had to meet and the trial had proceeded on the basis of the correct Act.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2013 r.14.2 DATES EFFECT OF ERROR IN DATE OF SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT IN STATEMENT OF OFFENCE INDICTMENTS INDICTMENTS ACT 1915 s.3 LEGISLATION PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY RAPE SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 TRIAL PROCEEDING ON BASIS OF CORRECT ACT VALIDITY
The acquittal of one of three men charged with multiple rapes of a woman over an evening had been explicable on the basis that he had joined the other two after the victim had ceased to show resistance. The judge had properly left the issue of reasonable belief in consent to the jury and had properly given a separate treatment direction.
CONSENT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 s.23 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FRESH EVIDENCE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS LEAVING ISSUE OF REASONABLENESS OF BELIEF IN CONSENT TO JURY MULTIPLE RAPES OF ONE WOMAN BY THREE MEN OVER AN EVENING RAPE REASONABLE BELIEF WHETHER ACQUITTAL OF CO-DEFENDANT EXPLICABLE ON FACTS
The imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of four-and-a-half years following an offender’s conviction for rape and kidnapping could not be faulted, notwithstanding the judge’s failure to set out her reasons for rejecting an extended sentence in her sentencing remarks. An extended sentence had undoubtedly been discussed at the relevant time, and the offender, who posed a serious risk to vulnerable women, was unlikely to comply with the licence conditions under the extended sentence regime.
APPROPRIATENESS OF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 Pt 12 DANGEROUS OFFENDER POSING SERIOUS RISK TO VULNERABLE WOMEN DANGEROUSNESS EXTENDED SENTENCES IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION JUDGE FAILING TO SET OUT REASONS FOR REJECTING IMPOSITION OF EXTENDED SENTENCE IN SENTENCING REMARKS KIDNAPPING Pt 12 s.225 Pt 12 s.226 RAPE s.227 s.228 SENTENCING
Although part of prosecuting counsel’s cross-examination of a rape defendant, related to bad character and based on inadmissible hearsay evidence, had been misjudged and regrettable, it had not affected the overall fairness of the proceedings or the safety of the verdict.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CAUTIONS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DETENTION FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION EFFECT ON OVERALL FAIRNESS OF PROCEEDINGS AND SAFETY OF CONVICTION HEARSAY EVIDENCE INTRODUCTION OF INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF RAPE DEFENDANT RAPE SENTENCING SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN YOUNG OFFENDERS
Although the delay in the appellant’s prosecution for historic sexual offences was extreme, the resulting missing evidence was not of a degree of cogency that could amount to a finding of serious prejudice in its absence. The trial judge had given the jury appropriate directions regarding the effect of the delay and the appellant’s convictions were safe.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DEFENCE EVIDENCE DELAY EFFECT OF EXTENSIVE DELAY ON DEFENCE CASE PREJUDICE RAPE SEXUAL OFFENCES STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
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
A sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for rape was reduced to 10 and a half years where the sentencing judge had failed to have sufficient regard to the unusual circumstances of the offence, in particular the effect upon the offender and the complainant, his former partner, of the death of their child.
CRIMINAL LAW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IMPACT OF CHILD’S DEATH MITIGATION RAPE RAPE OF LONG-TERM PARTNER SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES SUFFICIENCY OF REGARD TO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
The defendant’s convictions for raping his partner were safe where there was expert evidence that his mental illness had not affected his ability to understand whether his partner had consented. Even if that were wrong, delusional beliefs that a victim was consenting could not render reasonable a belief that the victim was consenting when they were not.
ASSAULT CONSENT CRIMINAL DAMAGE CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELUSIONAL BELIEF IN CONSENT EFFECT OF DEFENDANT’S MENTAL ILLNESS JURY DIRECTIONS MENTAL DISORDER RAPE REASONABLE BELIEF REASONABLENESS OF BELIEF IN CONSENT TO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE s.1 SCHIZOPHRENIA SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.1(1)
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.