R v AWG

R v AWG

The judge's misdirection regarding the frequency of offending in specimen counts did not undermine the integrity of the jury verdicts. The convictions are safe, but sentencing must proceed on the basis that offending occurred on one occasion per count, not at least five.

Parties
Applicant: AWG; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction
Outcome
application for permission to appeal conviction rejected
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Specimen Counts, Jury Directions, Misdirection, Child Protection
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Specimen Counts Jury Directions Misdirection Child Protection

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AWG

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's misdirection on specimen counts rendered the convictions unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the jury should have been directed to find offending on at least five occasions rather than one
  3. 3 Impact of misdirection on the integrity of the verdicts

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's misdirection regarding the frequency of offending in specimen counts did not undermine the integrity of the jury verdicts. The convictions are safe, but sentencing must proceed on the basis that offending occurred on one occasion per count, not at least five.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal conviction rejected

Orders

  • case remitted to trial judge for sentencing on basis of offending on one occasion per count