Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Justice does not require enlargement of time to appeal multiple convictions for sexual offences
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal refuses to enlarge the time to appeal for two appeals arising from multiple convictions for rape, sexual assault, defilement and attempted defilement, but deems the applicant to have appealed in time in respect of indecent assault convictions, and refuses application to amend existing grounds of that appeal, finding that the interests of justice do not require that the applicant should be granted the enlargement of time, and there has been a signal failure by the applicant to engage, even at the most rudimentary level, with the evidence given and rulings made at the trial.
Criminal law – practice and procedure – enlargement of time within which to appeal – liberty to furnish grounds of appeal or to amend existing grounds of appeal – appeal of rape, sexual assault, defilement and indecent assault convictions – s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 – s. 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990 – s.31 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 – s. 10 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 – s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (amendment) Act, 1990 – s. 2(2) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 2006 – s. 3(2) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 2006 – overriding consideration must be the interests of justice – Order 86, Rule 38 – Order 86, Rule 8 – interests of justice do not require that the applicant should be granted the enlargement of time – application for enlargement of time refused – applicant should be permitted to ventilate the additional grounds of appeal that he now wishes to argue, over and above those that he originally filed – motions refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
