The defendant’s conviction was unsafe as the judge had wrongly refused an application for leave to cross-examine the victim, and had put to the defendant, evidence of previous sexual acts of a similar nature. The judge’s attention had wrongly been drawn to s.41(3)(c)(ii) Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 when the matter should have been considered under s.41(3)(c)(i).
COMPLAINANT’S PREVIOUS SIMILAR CONSENSUAL BEHAVIOUR WITH ACCUSED CONSENT CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CROSS EXAMINATION ON PREVIOUS CONSENSUAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION EVIDENCE FALSE IMPRISONMENT INDECENT ASSAULT RAPE s.14(2) s.41 s.41(1) s.41(1)(2) s.41(2) s.41(3)(a) s.41(3)(b) s.41(3)(c) S.41(3)(C) YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41(3)(c)(i) s.43(3)(ii) SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR SEXUAL OFFENCES SIMILAR CONSENSUAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR STRIKING SIMILARITY TIME YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 S.41(3)(C)(I) AND (II) YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999 s.41(3)(c)(ii)