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.
Trial judge entitled not to give corroboration warning in sexual assault trial
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of sexual assault conviction, on the grounds that: a) the trial judge was entitled to refuse an application for a direction where it was for the jury to decide if complainant's evidence was incapable of belief or unreliable; and b) it was open to the trial judge to refuse to give a corroboration warning where the evidential inconsistencies related to peripheral matters, and the decision not to give a warning may be considered all but self-explanatory.
Criminal law – appeal of sexual assault conviction – section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, as amended by section 37 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 – appellant’s application for a direction – whether the trial judge erred in law in failing to give a corroboration warning – it was for the jury to decide if complainant's evidence was incapable of belief or unreliable – s. 7 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act 1990 – decision not to give a warning may be considered all but self-explanatory – 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.
