Although a judge had unnecessarily and improperly intervened during a defendant’s examination-in-chief, the interventions were not so significant as to materially impair the defendant’s ability to put his case before the jury. The judge’s interventions, combined with deficiencies in his summing-up, had not deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
CONSENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EXAMINATION IN CHIEF INTERVENTION JUDGES RAPE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL SUMMING UP
A judge’s decision to stay a prosecution as an abuse of process on the basis of a failure by the prosecution to properly pursue a line of enquiry when investigating allegations of sexual assault was wrong in principle and did not constitute a reasonable exercise of his discretion.
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FAMILIAL CHILD SEX OFFENCES MOBILE TELEPHONES PROSECUTION DISCLOSURE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL SEXUAL OFFENCES STAY OF PROCEEDINGS UNUSED MATERIAL
The court considered issues relating to the impact of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.28 and the pre-recorded cross-examination of vulnerable child witnesses, and provided guidance regarding best practice for trial judges and advocates.
CASE MANAGEMENT CHILD SEX OFFENCES CHILDREN CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION JURY DIRECTIONS RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL SPECIAL MEASURES DIRECTIONS VIDEO RECORDINGS VULNERABLE AND INTIMIDATED WITNESSES
A trial for three specimen offences of sexual activity with a child had been fair, even though the complainant’s cross-examination was cut short due to her extreme distress. The defendant’s principal defence had been put to her, and there was other evidence upon which the jury could rely. The resulting sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was appropriate given that the defendant had committed numerous similar offences against the complainant while the sentencing guidelines were aimed at a single offence.
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION FAIRNESS OF TRIAL WHERE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT CUT SHORT DUE TO EXTREME DISTRESS RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SPECIMEN CHARGES
The court granted leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 s.2(2)(b) against the defendant, Gary Glitter, on counts of alleged historic sex abuse. Acknowledging the exceptional nature of its decision, the court held that it was in the interests of justice, and the defendant would not be denied a fair trial by reason of delay.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES ABUSE OF PROCESS ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1933 s.2 CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELAY RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL s.2(2)(a) s.2(2)(b) STAY OF PROCEEDINGS VOLUNTARY BILLS OF INDICTMENT
The court gave guidance on the procedure to be followed by the judge when deciding whether the cross-examination of a vulnerable witness was appropriate.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION HUMAN RIGHTS PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY JUDGE WHEN DETERMINING APPROPRIATENESS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL s.27(5) s.28 s.53 s.54 s.54(3) s.54(6) VIDEO EVIDENCE VULNERABLE AND INTIMIDATED WITNESSES YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.27
A judge had not erred in refusing an application for an interim non-disclosure order where the interests of publishers and the public under the ECHR art.6 and art.10 outweighed the interests of a person under art.8 who had been arrested but not formally charged following an investigation into allegations of child sex grooming and prostitution.
art.6 art.8 art.8(2) CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1981 s.4(2) CORRECTNESS OF REFUSAL TO IMPOSE INTERIM NON-DISCLOSURE ORDER ON PUBLISHERS CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.10 HUMAN RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT NEWSPAPERS NON-DISCLOSURE ORDERS OPEN JUSTICE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE s.4 SUSPECT ARRESTED BUT NOT CHARGED WITH CHILD SEX OFFENCES
A judge had not erred in refusing to stay proceedings for abuse of process in a trial concerning sexual offences which took place after the death of a defence witness, where there was no suggestion that the witness would have given unique or striking evidence, and the judge had properly directed the jury on the matter so as not to render the trial unfair.
ABUSE OF PROCESS ADEQUACY OF JURY DIRECTIONS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DEATH OF KEY DEFENCE WITNESS DEFENCE EVIDENCE DEFENCE WITNESSES FAIRNESS INDECENT ASSAULT RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL STAY OF PROCEEDINGS WHETHER ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AFFECTED OUTCOME WITNESSES
It was compatible with a child’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 to convict him of rape contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.5 in circumstances where the agreed basis of plea established that his offence also fell properly within the ambit of s.13.
art.6(2) art.8 BASIS OF PLEA CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONDUCT FALLING WITHIN AMBIT OF S.5 AND S.13 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 CRIMINAL CHARGES CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.6(1) HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTIFICATION LAWFULNESS OF PROSECUTOR’S DECISION TO PROSECUTE UNDER S.5 Part 2 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PROPORTIONALITY RAPE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE s.13 s.9 s.9(1)(c)(ii) Sch.1 Sch.3 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.5 STRICT LIABILITY YOUNG OFFENDERS
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.