Appleyard, R. v

Appleyard, R. v

The judge advocate's direction to seek unanimity did not contravene section 96 of the Army Act 1955 or undermine the independence or impartiality of the court martial; the directions were proper and did not justify quashing the convictions. Sentences imposed were appropriate given the seriousness of the offences, but the totality principle required that sentences for indecent assault run from the date of conviction.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Anthony Appleyard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Court Martial Procedure, Majority Verdicts, Unanimity Directions, Duress, Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, Indecent Assault, Sentencing, Mitigation, Totality Principle
Criminal Law Military Law Court Martial Procedure Majority Verdicts Unanimity Directions Duress Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice Indecent Assault +3 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Anthony Appleyard

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge advocate's direction to seek unanimity contravened section 96 of the Army Act 1955
  2. 2 Whether the directions deprived the court martial of impartiality and independence
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were excessive or failed to consider mitigation and totality

Ratio Decidendi

The judge advocate's direction to seek unanimity did not contravene section 96 of the Army Act 1955 or undermine the independence or impartiality of the court martial; the directions were proper and did not justify quashing the convictions. Sentences imposed were appropriate given the seriousness of the offences, but the totality principle required that sentences for indecent assault run from the date of conviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Convictions upheld; no interference with sentences for perverting the course of justice and related offences
  • Sentences for indecent assault to run from the date of conviction as a matter of totality