Two appeals against conviction for the sexual abuse of children were dismissed. Although the judge should not have allowed the jury to return their verdicts piecemeal, that had not affected the overall safety of the convictions. However, in trials of sexual abuse cases involving multiple counts, trial judges should invite the jury not to return their verdicts until they had concluded their deliberations on all counts.
ADMISSIBILITY APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION CHILD SEX OFFENCES COUNTS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JURY DIRECTIONS PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROPENSITY VERDICTS
Where there had been confusion during the jury’s return of verdicts on four counts of an indictment against two co-defendants, and a verdict against a count of kidnap was not formally entered against one defendant, that defendant had not been convicted of kidnap. The court therefore ordered the Crown Court record to be amended accordingly and the defendant’s sentence for kidnap was quashed.
ACTUAL BODILY HARM APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION ASSAULT CO-ACCUSED CONVICTIONS COUNTS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE KIDNAPPING RAPE ROBBERY SENTENCING VERDICTS
A judge had been entitled to continue a trial after one juror was discharged and there was nothing to suggest this had impacted on the fairness with which the remaining jurors had viewed the evidence. The jury had been placed under no pressure to return a verdict and had clearly taken care in analysing the evidence following a fair and balanced direction from the judge.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DEADLOCK DISCHARGE DISCHARGE OF JURY JURORS POSSIBLE EFFECT ON FAIRNESS OF JURY AFTER DISCHARGE OF JUROR SEXUAL OFFENCES SPEED OF JURY’S SHIFT FROM DEADLOCK TO REACHING VERDICTS VERDICTS