R v Noor

R v Noor

The judge was entitled to give a section 34 direction because the applicant's failure to mention in interview that he tried to wake the complainant was not part of the prosecution case or agreed, and the jury could properly infer that his account was tailored to meet the prosecution evidence. The conviction is not unsafe.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Abdul Noor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Adverse Inference, Appeal Against Conviction, Section 34 Direction
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Adverse Inference Appeal Against Conviction Section 34 Direction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Abdul Noor

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in giving a section 34 direction regarding the applicant's failure to mention in interview that the complainant had fallen asleep and that he had attempted to awaken her
  2. 2 Whether the conviction is unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to give a section 34 direction because the applicant's failure to mention in interview that he tried to wake the complainant was not part of the prosecution case or agreed, and the jury could properly infer that his account was tailored to meet the prosecution evidence. The conviction is not unsafe.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal against conviction refused

Orders

  • applicant to pay the reasonable costs of the transcripts in the sum of £81.32