Cooper & Anor, R v [2003] EWCA Crim 29 (29 January 2003)
The judge had discretion under s.41 to restrict cross-examination about other sexual complaints, and exercised it properly. There was no evidential basis for asserting other complaints were false, so questioning would have been about sexual behaviour and restricted. The trial was fair and the verdicts are safe.
- Citation
- [2003] EWCA Crim 29
- Parties
- Respondent: R; Appellant: Alan David Cooper; Appellant: Julie Betts
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 29 January 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Indecency With a Child, Indecent Assault, Admissibility of Evidence, Cross Examination, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Credibility of Complainants
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
R
Respondent
Alan David Cooper
Appellant
Julie Betts
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether evidence of other sexual complaints by complainants should have been admitted
- 2 Whether cross-examination regarding other complaints should have been permitted
- 3 Whether the trial was unfair and the verdict unsafe due to exclusion of such evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The judge had discretion under s.41 to restrict cross-examination about other sexual complaints, and exercised it properly. There was no evidential basis for asserting other complaints were false, so questioning would have been about sexual behaviour and restricted. The trial was fair and the verdicts are safe.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Convictions upheld
- No change to sentences
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment