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 was correct to refuse to sever indictment in sexual assault conviction
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against conviction for sexual offences, holding that the trial judge had been correct in refusing to sever the indictment, as there were striking similarities between the complaints, suggesting the exploitation of common opportunities presented by the familial and neighbourly relationship between the appellant and all three complainants.
Appeal against conviction for multiple counts of indecent assault contrary to common law and s. 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 / s. 10 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 respectively and one count of sexual assault contrary to s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 - three complainants, all of whom sisters and relations and neighbours of the appellant - 19 out of 21 counts relate to one complainant - application to sever indictment refused by trial judge - whether trial judge erred in refusing to direct separate trials in respect of the two counts relating to the other two complainants.
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.
