UNSAFE CONVICTIONS

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.

The court gave guidance on a jury direction required in relation to establishing the elements of the offence of indecent assault.

A conviction for attempted rape was quashed following the admission of new DNA evidence taken from clothing worn by the victim at the time of the offence.

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.

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.

Where a family member had been convicted of the indecent assault of two children of the family, notwithstanding inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence of the complainants, the judge had been entitled to leave the matter to the jury. In her directions to the jury, the judge had dealt fairly and clearly with the issue of alleged collusion, contamination and cross-admissibility, and had given commonsense guidance when reminding the jury that it was dealing with the evidence of children: the conviction was not unsafe as a result of the judge’s comments.

Where an accused convicted of indecent assault of a man had mistakenly been charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1) instead of s.15(1) and had been found unfit to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 s.4A, the conviction was unsafe. Section 4A clearly stated that the jury had to be satisfied that the accused had done the act charged. Even though the indictment particulars were accurate, the actus reus of indecent assault on a woman could not be established by an indecent assault on a man.

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.