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.
Identification parade not necessary where CCTV footage put complainant and accused in close proximity
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of conviction for sexual exploitation of a child where there were alleged inconsistencies in the description that was given by the complainant of the appellant, finding that: a) an identification parade was not warranted where there was significant CCTV of the encounter; and b) any issues arising from the cross-examination and re-examination of the complainant in respect of his identification of the appellant were properly dealt with by the trial judge.
Criminal law – appeal of conviction for sexual exploitation of a child – Sexual Exploitation of a Child contrary to s. 3 of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1988 as amended of s. 6 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Act 2007 and as substituted by s. 3(2) of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 – objection to CCTV evidence – whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence exceeded its probative value – inconsistencies in the description that was given by the complainant – failure to hold an identification parade – issues arising from the cross-examination of the complainant – issues arising from re-examination of the complainant – appeal dismissed.
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.
