Top Rape Barrister and Leading Criminal KC
Call now: +44 (0) 203 846 5801
≡
  • Home
  • Expertise
    • Rape Defence Barrister
    • Sexual Assault
      • Assault By Penetration Defence Barrister
      • Assault By Touching Defence Barrister
      • Administering Substances Defence Barrister
    • Underage sex
      • Grooming
    • Exploitation
    • Porn / Voyeurism
  • Criminal Appeals
  • Bail
  • Direct Access
  • Contact
  •  Call +44 (0) 203 846 5801
Top Criminal Barrister QC and Leading Rape Defence Counsel

s.3

July 17, 2015

When dismissing an appeal against conviction for sexual activity involving children, including rape and trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation, the court considered the issue of consent. Where a vulnerable or immature individual had allegedly been subjected to grooming for sexual purposes, the question of whether real or proper consent had been given would usually be for the jury to decide, unless the evidence clearly indicated that proper consent had been given.

CONSENT CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DE MINIMIS ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN PRESENCE OF CHILDREN GROOMING OF VULNERABLE OR IMMATURE PERSONS FOR SEXUAL PURPOSES INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN RAPE REAL OR PROPER CONSENT s.1 s.1(1) s.10 s.101 s.11(1) s.3 s.58 s.58(1)(a) s.59A s.9 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.58(1) TRAFFICKING FOR SEXUAL EXPLOITATION YOUNG OFFENDERS

July 9, 2015

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

January 23, 2015

A judge had been right to refuse severance of a defendant’s indictment for child abduction from his co-defendants’ additional indictments for rape. The jury had not misunderstood the scope or nature of the case against the defendant, they had been directed carefully and the summing up had been clear.

APPLICATION TO SEVER INDICTMENT CHILD ABDUCTION CHILD ABDUCTION ACT 1984 s.2 CO-DEFENDANTS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INDICTMENTS JURY DIRECTIONS RAPE s.2(1)(a) s.3 SEVERANCE SUMMING UP THREE CO-DEFENDANTS JOINTLY CHARGED WITH CHILD ABDUCTION TWO CO-DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH RAPE

November 5, 2014

An individual had been incorrectly convicted of a historic offence of rape against a family member because, at the relevant time, anal penetration did not constitute that offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.1. It was appropriate to substitute an alternative conviction for indecent assault, as the facts fell within the scope of s.14(1) of the 1956 Act, and the test set out in R. v Graham (Hemamali Krishna) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 302 was satisfied.

“HISTORIC” OFFENCES ALTERNATIVE CHARGES CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1968 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RAPE s.14 s.14(1) s.2 s.3 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.1 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 TOTALITY OF SENTENCE YOUNG OFFENDERS

August 8, 2014

Magistrates had erred in dismissing the appeal of a convicted sex offender against a decision of a detective, acting on behalf of the chief constable, not to end the offender’s notification requirements.

CARLTONA PRINCIPLE CHIEF CONSTABLES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DELEGATED POWERS DELEGATION DELEGATION OF CHIEF CONSTABLE’S DUTY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS POLICE Pt 3 REVIEW OF NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 S.91B s.1(3)(b) s.104(1) s.109(3) s.14 s.2 s.2(1) s.2(3) s.2(4) s.3 s.8 s.80(1) s.81(1) s.81(3)(c) s.83 s.83(5) s.83(5)(h) s.85 s.85(1) s.86 s.87 s.88A s.91 s.91A s.91A(1) s.91A(2) s.91A(4) s.91A(5) s.91B s.91B(1) s.91B(11)(b) s.91B(2) s.91B(2)(b) s.91B(4) s.91B(8)(b) s.91B(9) s.91C s.91C(1) s.91C(2) s.91C(3)(a) s.91C(4) s.91D s.91D(1) s.91D(1)(b) s.91D(1)(c) s.91D(2) s.91D(2)(a) s.91E s.91E(1) s.91E(2) s.91E(4) s.91F s.96B s.96B(1)(a) s.97(5) Sch.3 Sch.5 SEX OFFENDERS SEX OFFENDERS ACT 1997 s.1 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 Pt 2 STATUTORY POWERS

January 29, 2014

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

July 12, 2012

The court upheld the convictions of a male nurse for several counts of sexual assault upon women patients who were coming round after general anaesthetic in circumstances where the offender claimed that the complainants had experienced false memories as a side effect of the anaesthetic and the judge had given an appropriate direction to a jury in relation to its consideration of the evidence of several complainants for an assessment of the likelihood of the coincidence.

ASSAULT BY PENETRATION COINCIDENCE CORRECT DIRECTION IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT OF LIKELIHOOD OF COINCIDENCE CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ISSUE OF WHETHER COMPLAINANTS EXPERIENCING FALSE MEMORIES AS SIDE EFFECT OF ANAESTHETIC JURY DIRECTIONS NURSE ASSAULTING FEMALE PATIENTS COMING ROUND AFTER GENERAL ANAESTHETIC NURSES PROPENSITY s.3 SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.2

April 20, 2012

In determining under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 s.4A(2) whether a defendant, who was unfit to stand trial, was guilty of voyeurism the jury had to be satisfied that he had deliberately observed another person doing a private act for the purpose of his own sexual gratification.

ACTUS REUS AUTISTIC OFFENDER UNFIT TO PLEAD OR STAND TRIAL CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 s.4A(2) ELEMENTS OF OFFENCE TO BE PROVEN FOR PURPOSE OF S.4A(2) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 FITNESS TO PLEAD INSANITY MENTAL HEALTH Pt 2 s.104 s.104(1) s.104(1)(a) s.104(1)(b) s.104(3)(b) s.110(1)(b) s.2(1) s.3 s.4 s.4(5) s.4(5)(6) s.4A s.5 s.5(1)(a) s.5(2)(b) s.67 s.67(1)(b) s.68(1) s.68(1)(a) s.80(1)(c) s.82 Sch.3 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.67(1) TRIAL OF LUNATICS ACT 1883 s.2 VOYEURISM

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

January 20, 2010

A total sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with an extended licence period of two years imposed on an offender following his pleas of guilty to three counts of sexual assault was manifestly excessive and was reduced to six years’ imprisonment; further, the extended licence period was not warranted.

APPROPRIATE TOTAL SENTENCE FOR THREE OFFENCES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT APPROPRIATENESS OF EXTENDED LICENCE PERIOD CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 Sch.15A EXTENDED SENTENCES LICENCE PERIODS s.227(2) s.240 s.3 SENTENCING SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL OFFENCES TOTALITY OF SENTENCE

Previous Posts

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.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 

"HISTORIC" OFFENCES ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST ADMISSIBILITY AGGRAVATING FEATURES ASSAULT BY PENETRATION ATTEMPTS BAD CHARACTER BUGGERY CAUSING CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY CHILDREN CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONSENT CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DANGEROUSNESS DELAY EXTENDED SENTENCES FRESH EVIDENCE GUILTY PLEAS HUMAN RIGHTS IMPRISONMENT FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN JURY DIRECTIONS MINIMUM TERM PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS RAPE RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS SUMMING UP TOTALITY OF SENTENCE UNDUE LENIENCY YOUNG OFFENDERS