Pacurar, R. v

Pacurar, R. v

The prosecution is not required to specify the precise sexual offence intended under section 63(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the evidence does not permit; the indictment and particulars were sufficient; the judge's directions to the jury were adequate; there was sufficient evidence of intent; automatism had no evidential basis; the omission of one limb of the good character direction did not render the conviction unsafe; the conviction is safe.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Adrian Pacurar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Trespass With Intent, Particularity of Indictment, Mens Rea, Automatism, Expert Evidence, Jury Directions, Good Character Directions
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Trespass With Intent Particularity of Indictment Mens Rea Automatism Expert Evidence Jury Directions +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Adrian Pacurar

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution must specify the precise sexual offence intended under section 63(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the judge's directions to the jury were adequate regarding intent and particulars
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence of intent to commit a sexual offence and trespass

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution is not required to specify the precise sexual offence intended under section 63(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the evidence does not permit; the indictment and particulars were sufficient; the judge's directions to the jury were adequate; there was sufficient evidence of intent; automatism had no evidential basis; the omission of one limb of the good character direction did not render the conviction unsafe; the conviction is safe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction upheld