AT v R.

AT v R.

The convictions are safe. The delay, while significant, did not render a fair trial impossible and was adequately addressed by the trial process and summing-up. The fresh evidence sought to be adduced did not meet the statutory criteria or would not have affected the safety of the convictions. The summing-up, though...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: AT; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Historic Sexual Abuse, Delay in Prosecution, Fair Trial, Fresh Evidence, Sufficiency of Summing Up, Cross Admissibility, Collusion, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Historic Sexual Abuse Delay in Prosecution Fair Trial Fresh Evidence Sufficiency of Summing Up Cross Admissibility Collusion +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AT

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions are unsafe due to delay and alleged prejudice to the defence
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's summing-up was deficient regarding delay, cross-admissibility, and collusion

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions are safe. The delay, while significant, did not render a fair trial impossible and was adequately addressed by the trial process and summing-up. The fresh evidence sought to be adduced did not meet the statutory criteria or would not have affected the safety of the convictions. The summing-up, though not ideal, was sufficiently balanced and addressed the core issues. There was no material misdirection or omission that rendered the convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld