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
A recorder had erred in varying an order so that the identity of a young offender could be made public; he had given insufficient consideration to the public interest in the effective rehabilitation of the offender.
ANONYMITY CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1933 s.39 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE KIDNAPPING PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY REHABILITATION REPORTING RESTRICTIONS SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN SEXUAL ASSAULT YOUNG OFFENDERS
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 sentence of four years’ imprisonment was appropriate for an offence of sexual assault where the offender had pretended to be a taxi-driver, targeting lone, drunken females, and where he had prevented his victim from leaving his car before taking her to a dark area to assault her in extremely frightening circumstances. As the force was minimal and there was no attempt to undress his victim or degrade her in any way, a sentence of six years’ imprisonment was too long.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 DANGEROUSNESS DRUNKEN FEMALES TARGETED BY PRETEND TAXI-DRIVER LONE MINIMAL FORCE AND NO UNDRESSING OR DEGRADATION INVOLVED SENTENCING SEXUAL ASSAULT TAXIS TOTALITY OF SENTENCE VICTIM TAKEN TO DARK AREA AND PREVENTED FROM LEAVING VEHICLE
In passing sentence for sexual assault, a judge had been entitled to take an adjusted starting point of six years’ imprisonment, as opposed to one of 12 months as recommended in the sentencing guidelines. The offence had been replete with aggravating factors and, save for a guilty plea, devoid of any mitigation. The judge had correctly observed that the guidelines were precisely such: guidelines, not tram lines.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES DANGEROUSNESS EXTENDED SENTENCES JUDGE TAKING STARTING POINT ABOVE THAT RECOMMENDED IN SENTENCING GUIDELINES NUMEROUS AGGRAVATING FACTORS WITH ONLY GUILTY PLEA IN MITIGATION OFFENDER ASSAULTING WOMAN IN TOILET CUBICLE PERSISTENT OFFENDERS SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ASSAULT STARTING POINT
The Appeal Division of the Isle of Man had been entitled to conclude that an autistic man’s conviction for sexual assault was safe. The expert evidence adduced by the offender about his condition did not lead to a different conclusion because the evidence, as a whole, supported conviction.
AUTISTIC SPECTRUM DISORDER CREDIBILITY CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ISLE OF MAN SEXUAL ASSAULT SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE UNSAFE CONVICTIONS VULNERABLE DEFENDANTS WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE WHETHER PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT AUTISTIC DEFENDANT ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
A judge receiving fresh prosecution evidence during the course of a trial might have put undue pressure on a defendant to change his plea by indicating that he would give a reasonable amount of credit if he did so. However, the incident could not lay the foundation for an allegation of bias because the defendant had continued to maintain his innocence and the judge had continued to conduct the trial entirely fairly.
ADMISSIBILITY BIAS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.101(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FALSE IMPRISONMENT FRESH EVIDENCE JUDGE RECEIVING FRESH EVIDENCE INDICATING REASONABLE CREDIT WOULD BE GIVEN IF DEFENDANT CHANGED PLEA JUDICIAL INDICATIONS JURY DIRECTIONS PROPENSITY SEXUAL ASSAULT SUMMING UP WHETHER JUDGE BIASED
A discretionary life sentence with a minimum term of four years for offences of false imprisonment, committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence and sexual assault was manifestly excessive. Such a sentence was to be reserved for the gravest offences and a sentence of detention for public protection with a three-year minimum term was appropriate.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES APPROPRIATE MINIMUM TERM DETENTION FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION DISCRETIONARY LIFE IMPRISONMENT EXTENDED SENTENCES MINIMUM TERM OFFENDING ON LICENCE PUBLIC PROTECTION SENTENCING SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE SERIOUSNESS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ON SCHOOLGIRL SEXUAL ASSAULT STARTING POINT VICTIM PERSONAL STATEMENTS WHETHER DISCRETIONARY LIFE SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE YOUNG OFFENDERS
A total sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed for two sexual assaults was manifestly excessive and was reduced to three years. The judge had been entitled to find that the aggravating features moved the offences out of the third category in the definitive guideline for sexual assault, but he had erred in passing a sentence on one count which was at the starting point of the first category.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 Pt 12 s.225 DANGEROUS OFFENDER PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE DANGEROUS OFFENDERS JUDGE ERRING IN CALCULATION OF SENTENCE WITH REGARD TO AGGRAVATING FEATURES Pt 12 s.227 s.225 s.227 s.240 SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ASSAULT
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.