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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against conviction for indecent assault, on the grounds that: (a) the trial judge's statement that she did not ‘tend’ to give a corroboration warning did not mean that she would never be disposed to give a warning, which would be indicative of a impermissible practice, but simply that she did not routinely give a warning, which is the correct approach as a judge should not be disposed to give a warning unless there is significant evidential material that requires it; (b) the case was a borderline one in terms of whether a corroboration warning was necessary but the trial judge did not exercise her discretion in an impermissible way; and (c) where the trial judge had decided not to give a corroboration warning at all, the question of what language she might have chosen to use did not arise.
Appeal against conviction for indecent assault - counts on the indictment relate to dates between 1977 and 1979 - complainant is son of the appellant and was aged between 14 and 16 - complainant worked and lived on premises of chip shop owned by appellant and stated that events of sexual nature began shortly after he began to work fulltime in the shop and occurred in the bedroom upstairs and in a caravan - at trial counsel for appellant applied for corroboration warning predicated on alleged inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence - whether decision by trial judge on the corroboration warning failed to engage with the evidence in the case as required by s. 7 of the Criminal Law Rape (Amendment) Act 1990 - whether decision not to give a corroboration warning was an error of principle.
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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.