AM, R. v

AM, R. v

The judge erred in holding that the proposed cross-examination was about sexual behaviour rather than a previous complaint; there was sufficient material for the jury to conclude the previous complaint was false; section 41 did not apply and refusal of leave rendered the conviction unsafe.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: AM; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
conviction quashed, appeal allowed, no re-trial ordered
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Cross Examination, Credibility of Complainant, Section 41 Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Cross Examination Credibility of Complainant Section 41 Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AM

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should have been granted under section 41 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to cross-examine the complainant about a previous allegation of rape
  2. 2 Whether the proposed cross-examination related to sexual behaviour or to a previous statement
  3. 3 Whether there was a proper evidential basis to assert the previous complaint was false

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in holding that the proposed cross-examination was about sexual behaviour rather than a previous complaint; there was sufficient material for the jury to conclude the previous complaint was false; section 41 did not apply and refusal of leave rendered the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed, appeal allowed, no re-trial ordered

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • No re-trial in the public interest