RETRIALS

October 25, 2018

Following the appellant’s retrial for sexual offences, the judge had been correct to impose a special sentence of custody for offenders of particular concern. However, the term imposed, namely a custodial term of 16 years and an extended licence period of one year, contravened the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 Sch.2 para.2(1) because it was “of greater severity” than the 17-year sentence imposed at the original trial. That was because of the release regime applicable to offenders who were subject to a special sentence of custody for offenders of particular concern.

INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN OFFENDERS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 RELEASE FROM CUSTODY RETRIALS SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN UNLAWFUL SENTENCES

September 2, 2014

An acquittal on counts of rape and assault by penetration would be quashed and a retrial ordered where the complainant had left the country after giving an achieving best evidence interview and the Crown had offered no evidence at trial. There was new and compelling evidence in the form of the complainant’s evidence which was available when she returned to the country, and a retrial would be in the interests of justice.

ACQUITTAL FOLLOWING FOREIGN RAPE COMPLAINANT’S UNAVAILABILITY FOR TRIAL AND INADMISSIBILITY OF ACHIEVING BEST EVIDENCE INTERVIEW ACQUITTALS ASSAULT BY PENETRATION CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.76 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE NEW AND COMPELLING EVIDENCE Pt 10 QUASHING ORDERS RAPE RETRIALS RETURN OF COMPLAINANT TO UK s.101(1)(d) s.101(1)(g) s.62 s.62(8) s.75 s.76(1) s.77 s.77(1) s.78 s.78(1) s.78(2) s.78(3) s.78(5) s.79 s.82 s.84

June 23, 2011

Where an accused convicted of indecent assault of a man had mistakenly been charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1) instead of s.15(1) and had been found unfit to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 s.4A, the conviction was unsafe. Section 4A clearly stated that the jury had to be satisfied that the accused had done the act charged. Even though the indictment particulars were accurate, the actus reus of indecent assault on a woman could not be established by an indecent assault on a man.

ACCUSED MISTAKENLY CHARGED WITH INDECENT ASSAULT OF WOMAN ACCUSED UNFIT TO STAND TRIAL FOR INDECENT ASSAULT OF MAN ACTUS REUS OF INDECENT ASSAULT OF WOMAN NOT ESTABLISHED BY INDECENT ASSAULT OF A MAN. BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968 s.15 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 s.4A FITNESS TO PLEAD INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS MISTAKE RETRIALS s.15(1) s.16 s.16(1)(b) s.16(4) s.161 s.3 s.4 s.41 s.4A(2) s.4A(2)(b) s.5 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.14(1) SUMMING UP UNSAFE CONVICTIONS

Contact Stephen

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.

Enter your name:*
First Last
Enter your contact email address*
Enter Email Confirm Email
Type your message*
Solve the math challenge to prove you're not a bot!
Name
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.