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
Where the failure by police to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of rape had been held to amount to breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR art.3, the victims of the rapes were entitled to a financial remedy for harm caused by the police failings on top of sums received in civil claims for the harm caused by the rapes. The court examined the statutory framework, relevant legal principles, previous authorities, and the existence of alternative remedies, and awarded sums of £22,250 and £19,000 respectively.
APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES Art.4(1) ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES DUE TO VICTIMS DAMAGES DUTY TO UNDERTAKE EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.3 FAILURE TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE HUMAN RIGHTS HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 s.8 MEASURE OF DAMAGES POLICE POLICE OFFICERS RAPE REMEDIES s.6 s.6(1) s.7 s.8(3)(a) s.81 s.83 s.84
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.82 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 in subjecting certain sex offenders to notification requirements indefinitely without the opportunity for review. As a matter of principle, an offender was entitled to have the question of whether the notification requirements continued to serve a legitimate purpose determined on a review.
ABSENCE OF RIGHT OF REVIEW Art.1 art.2 art.27 Art.27(2) Art.4 Art.4(1) Art.4(2) Art.4(3) COMPATIBILITY OF S.82 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 WITH ART.8 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 DECLARATIONS OF INCOMPATIBILITY DIRECTIVE 2004/38 ON FREE MOVEMENT FOR EU CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES 2004 art.4 DIRECTIVE 73/148 ON THE ABOLITION OF RESTRICTIONS OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY 1973 art.1 EC LAW EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.8 EUROPEAN UNION FOREIGN TRAVEL HUMAN RIGHTS NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Part 2 PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY PROPORTIONALITY Pt 2 RESTRICTIONS REVIEWS RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE RISK OF REOFFENDING s.108 s.114 s.118 s.125 s.5A s.81 s.82(1) s.82(2) s.82(6) s.83 s.83(1) s.83(1)(c) s.83(5) s.83(5A) s.83(6) s.84 s.84(1) s.84(2) s.85 s.85(2) s.85(2)(b) s.86 s.86(1) s.86(2) s.86(2)(a) s.86(3) s.87(1) s.87(4) s.91 s.91(1) s.91(1)(a) s.91(2) Sch.3 SENTENCING SEX OFFENDERS SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.82 YOUNG OFFENDERS