R v AUV

R v AUV

The applications for extension of time, admission of fresh evidence, and permission to appeal are refused as the criticisms of trial counsel, indictment drafting, and evidence handling do not demonstrate impermissible error or irregularity, nor do they undermine the safety of the convictions.

Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: AUV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time, Admission of Fresh Evidence, and Permission to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Applications refused; convictions upheld.
Legal Topics
Child Cruelty, Sexual Offences, Appeals, Fresh Evidence, Trial Counsel Competence
Criminal Law Child Cruelty Sexual Offences Appeals Fresh Evidence Trial Counsel Competence

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

AUV

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time, Admission of Fresh Evidence, and Permission to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for extension of time to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether trial counsel's conduct rendered the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for extension of time, admission of fresh evidence, and permission to appeal are refused as the criticisms of trial counsel, indictment drafting, and evidence handling do not demonstrate impermissible error or irregularity, nor do they undermine the safety of the convictions.

Court Disposition

Applications refused; convictions upheld.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Application to admit fresh evidence refused