Cooper & Anor, R v

Cooper & Anor, R v

The trial judge was correct to consider that s.41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 applied and to exercise his discretion to restrict cross-examination regarding other sexual complaints, as there was no evidential basis to suggest those complaints were false. The exclusion of such evidence did not render the trial unfair or the verdict unsafe.

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
Sexual Offences, Cross Examination, Admissibility of Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Cross Examination Admissibility of Evidence Credibility of Witnesses Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Alan David Cooper

Appellant

Julie Betts

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in restricting cross-examination regarding other sexual complaints made by the complainants
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of such evidence rendered the trial unfair and the verdict unsafe
  3. 3 Whether s.41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 applied to restrict cross-examination about other sexual behaviour

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to consider that s.41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 applied and to exercise his discretion to restrict cross-examination regarding other sexual complaints, as there was no evidential basis to suggest those complaints were false. The exclusion of such evidence did not render the trial unfair or the verdict unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions upheld
  • No orders as to costs