A district judge had failed to appreciate when deciding to retain jurisdiction to prosecute a young offender in the youth court for child sex offences that an amendment to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.3B introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 s.53 was not in force when he made his decision.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE CHILD SEX OFFENCES COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 s.51A CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS ACT 2015 s.53 CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JURISDICTION MODE OF TRIAL POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS (SENTENCING) ACT 2000 s.91(1) RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 RELIANCE ON AMENDMENT TO COMMITTAL FOR SENTENCE PROCEDURE NOT YET IN FORCE RETENTION OF JURISDICTION IN ERROR s.31 s.3B s.3B(1) s.3C s.51A(3) s.5A(1) s.6 s.91 s.91(3) YOUNG OFFENDERS YOUTH COURTS
The court gave guidance regarding the assessment of a complainant’s mental capacity in a criminal trial when the alleged offences involved proof of a lack of consent.
ASSESSMENT OF COMPLAINANT’S MENTAL CAPACITY BURDEN OF PROOF CONSENT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 s.4A EXPERT WITNESSES MENTAL CAPACITY MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 s.2 MENTAL HEALTH PERSONS LACKING CAPACITY s.1 s.1(2) s.2(1) s.2(4) s.30 s.30(2)(a) s.31 s.31(2)(a) s.32 s.32(2)(a) s.33 s.33(2)(a) s.4 s.4(5) s.42 s.44 s.74 s.75 s.76 SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.3 SEXUAL OFFENCES INVOLVING PROOF OF LACK OF CONSENT STANDARD OF PROOF
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
A Crown Court judge presiding over a retrial had been wrong to designate a pre-trial hearing as a preparatory hearing, and so the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the defendants’ interlocutory appeal against his ruling that the complainant’s police interview and cross-examination at the original trial could be admitted as hearsay evidence at the retrial.
ADMISSIBILITY COMPLAINANT’S REFUSAL TO ATTEND RETRIAL COMPLEXITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.114(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 s.29 DESIGNATION AS PREPARATORY HEARING HEARSAY EVIDENCE JURISDICTION PRE-TRIAL HEARINGS PREPARATORY HEARINGS RULING AT HEARING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPLAINANT’S EARLIER EVIDENCE AS HEARSAY s.114 s.114(2) s.114(2)(g) s.116 s.116(2) s.116(2)(b) s.116(2)(e) s.13(1) s.1311(1)(c) s.29(1) s.3(5) s.31 s.35(1) s.40 s.40(4) s.91(1) SERIOUSNESS AND LIKELY LENGTH OF TRIAL SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE SEXUAL OFFENCES
“Control” within the meaning of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.53 should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning of directing a relevant activity and included, but was not limited to, individuals who forced another to carry out a relevant activity. Therefore there was no need to prove that a complainant had been forced, coerced or compelled to work as a prostitute, merely that she had been directed to do so.
ACTUS REUS CONTROLLING PROSTITUTES CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JURY DIRECTIONS LIVING ON PROSTITUTION MEANING OF “CONTROLS” IN S.53 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.30(1) s.31 s.49 s.49(1) s.52 s.53(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 1956 s.30 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.53 STATUTORY DEFINITION STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
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.