In an indecent assault trial which turned on the comparative credibility of the complainant and the defendant, the judge should have given a full good-character direction in respect of the defendant. His failure to do so, coupled with his direction that the jury should treat the unchallenged evidence of the defendant’s character witnesses with caution, simply because they knew him well, rendered the defendant’s conviction unsafe.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CHILDREN’S HOMES CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DISCLOSURE GOOD CHARACTER HISTORICAL OFFENCES INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS SEVERANCE
A judge had been entitled to refuse severance of an indictment, meaning that an offender was tried for historic and recent counts of child sexual offences at the same time. The Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 r.3.21(4)(a) had removed the technical barriers to joinder in appropriate cases: where evidence on one count would be properly admissible on the other as evidence of bad character it was hard to argue that the offender would be prejudiced in his defence by having both counts on the same indictment. In the instant case, the recent counts would have been admissible as bad character evidence at the offender’s trial on the historic counts and vice versa.
BAD CHARACTER CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HISTORICAL OFFENCES INDECENT ASSAULT INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN JOINDER PREJUDICE SEVERANCE
A conviction for sexual assault was safe, even though a central piece of evidence for the prosecution was the hearsay statement of the two-and-a-half-year-old victim. The statement had properly been admitted under the Criminal Justice (Evidence) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 art.18(1)(d) and the judge had given appropriate directions to the jury about how it was to be treated.
ADMISSIBILITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DISCHARGE OF JURY HEARSAY EVIDENCE JURY DIRECTIONS RES GESTAE SEVERANCE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13
A judge had been right to refuse severance of a defendant’s indictment for child abduction from his co-defendants’ additional indictments for rape. The jury had not misunderstood the scope or nature of the case against the defendant, they had been directed carefully and the summing up had been clear.
APPLICATION TO SEVER INDICTMENT CHILD ABDUCTION CHILD ABDUCTION ACT 1984 s.2 CO-DEFENDANTS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INDICTMENTS JURY DIRECTIONS RAPE s.2(1)(a) s.3 SEVERANCE SUMMING UP THREE CO-DEFENDANTS JOINTLY CHARGED WITH CHILD ABDUCTION TWO CO-DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH RAPE
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
Investigations discontinued prior to April 1 1997 did not amount to a criminal investigation invoking the committal regime under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Part I . However a hybrid committal could take place if previous investigations had been put on hold and resurrected following the 1996 Act coming into force.
ABUSE OF PROCESS ADVERSE INFERENCES BUGGERY CARE WORKERS COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL COMMITTALS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 s.34 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 CROSS-ADMISSIBILITY DELAY FAILURE TO MENTION FACTS INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS JURY DIRECTIONS AS TO ADVERSE INFERENCES AND CROSS ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE LOCAL AUTHORITY RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAGISTRATES’ COURTS ACT 1980 MANIFESLTLY EXCESSIVE SENTENCE PARTI CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 RAPE RESIDENTIAL CARE S.34 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SEVERANCE SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES COMMITTED AT LOCAL AUTHORITY RESIDENTIAL CENTRE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 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.