Sufficient particulars of offences were provided to jury in sexual assault case

Criminal law – conviction appeal – sexual assault contrary to s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, as amended by s. 37 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 – attempted buggery of a person under seventeen years, contrary to s. 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 – buggery of a person under seventeen years, contrary to s. 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 – whether the evidence identified any of the offences allegedly committed within the period 1994 and 1997 as having been committed within the periods of time stipulated in the Indictment – whether the judge’s warning to the jury in relation to delay was inadequate and, more particularly, did not sufficiently emphasise the extent to which delay adversely affected memory in the context of cross examination – whether the trial judge was wrong in his ruling on the issue concerning whether or not a corroboration warning should be given to the jury – Criminal Law (Charleton, McDermott & Bolger) – sufficient particulars were provided to the jury in the course of A’s evidence, particularly as to the approximate dating of the offences such as enabled the jury reach verdicts of guilt or innocence in relation to each count – adequate delay warning given by the trial judge – section 7(1) of the Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990 – corroboration warning was not required – appeal dismissed.