SEXUAL ASSAULT

A conviction for sexual assault was safe where an offender’s original solicitors had failed to obtain medical evidence showing that he was a diabetic and suggesting that his medical condition affected the answers he had given in interview, during which he had made partial admissions. The jury had been persuaded by the evidence the complainant gave, who had no reason to have lied.

A taxi driver’s conviction for a single offence of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old passenger was not unsafe where the driver had been suffering from undiagnosed diabetes at the time of his police interview and, unbeknown to all, might have been hypoglycaemic. On the facts, the driver’s answers in police interview could not be regarded as having made any difference to the jury being satisfied that the girl was telling the truth.

A doctor’s rights under ECHR art.8 would not be breached by the police disclosing information which had been unlawfully obtained during their investigation into a patient’s allegation of sexual assault against him to the General Medical Council for the purposes of its inquiry into the doctor’s fitness to practise.

A sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of a senior police officer who had been convicted of a number of sexual offences against his wife and teenage boys. In a case of this nature, where the offending spanned a long period of time and where there had been significant changes in the legislation, Crown counsel should ensure that assistance was given to the judge in relation to his sentencing powers.

A conviction for sexual assault was quashed in circumstances where it was not clear that the jury would have reached the same verdict had it been aware of fresh evidence, admitted on appeal, that the offender suffered from Asperger’s syndrome.

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.

A judge had not erred in rejecting a submission of no case to answer in a trial for sexual assault where the only evidence against the accused was identification evidence from the victim. However, when admitting evidence of the accused’s previous conviction, the jury should have been told that the accused had only been included in an identification procedure because of his conviction.

A conviction for the sexual assault of a teenage friend of the appellant’s daughter was safe where the jury had been careful to convict only on the count for which there was some support from other witnesses and from the content of a text message sent after the incident.

The court gave guidance regarding the assessment of a complainant’s mental capacity in a criminal trial when the alleged offences involved proof of a lack of consent.