In the circumstances, the fact that a complainant had made an unfounded allegation of rape against an accused in a retrial did not cast doubt on the reliability of her evidence against him in an earlier trial so as to render unsafe his conviction for sexual assault in that earlier trial.
Although a judge’s summing up had been defective, in that he had recited large chunks of evidence rather than summarising the defence and prosecution cases, that had not affected the safety of a conviction for sexual assault, it did not deflect the jury from a proper and fair consideration of the issues.
An offender’s conviction for assault by penetration of the vagina had not been inconsistent with his acquittal for offences of attempted rape and sexual assault by anal penetration. Nor could his conviction be overturned on the grounds that the judge had given the jury a Watson direction at the same time as a majority verdict […]
A conviction for indecent assault was quashed where prejudicial witness evidence rendered the conviction unsafe. It was not appropriate to order a retrial owing to the antiquity of the proceedings and the defendant’s old age and failing health.
Inconsistent jury verdicts on one count of vaginal rape and one count of oral rape, arising out of same incident and given following a direction sanctioned by R. v Watson (Darren Antonio) [1988] Q.B. 690, were an unacceptable compromise and consequently unsafe.
Although a judge’s summing up and jury directions could have been more detailed and better tailored to the facts, they were not so deficient as to affect the safety of a conviction for the commission of sexual offences.
