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.
CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE FRESH EVIDENCE RAPE RELIABILITY RELIABILITY OF COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE ON SEXUAL ASSAULT SAFETY OF CONVICTION SEXUAL ASSAULT
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.
CLARITY OF ISSUES LEFT TO JURY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL LAW JUDGE’S DEFECTIVE SUMMING UP JUDGES SAFETY OF CONVICTION SEXUAL ASSAULT SUMMING UP
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 direction, as there was no evidence that the jury had been pressured into delivering compromise verdicts.
ASSAULT BY PENETRATION CONVICTIONS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS JURY DIRECTIONS MAJORITY VERDICTS OFFENDER CHARGED WITH THREE COUNTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ON YOUNG WOMAN SAFETY OF CONVICTION SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.2 WATSON DIRECTION GIVEN AT SAME TIME AS MAJORITY VERDICT DIRECTION WATSON DIRECTIONS WHETHER CONVICTION ON ONE COUNT INCONSISTENT WITH ACQUITTAL ON OTHER TWO COUNTS
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.
BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS PRE-TRIAL EVIDENCE PREJUDICIAL WITNESS EVIDENCE SAFETY OF CONVICTION WHETHER RETRIAL APPROPRIATE
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.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS INCONSISTENT VERDICTS ON SEPARATE COUNTS OF RAPE ARISING OUT OF SAME INCIDENT JURY DIRECTIONS MAJORITY VERDICTS RAPE SAFETY OF CONVICTION SEXUAL OFFENCES UNSAFE CONVICTIONS WATSON DIRECTION WATSON DIRECTIONS
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.
COLLUSION CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.119(1) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EFFECT OF SUMMING UP AND JURY DIRECTIONS ON SAFETY JURY DIRECTIONS NO CASE TO ANSWER PREVIOUS INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS s.114(2) s.119 SAFETY OF CONVICTION SEXUAL OFFENCES SUMMING UP
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.