C v R.

C v R.

The only established ground of appeal was the improper cross-examination of the appellant regarding his opinion, but this alone was insufficient to render the conviction unsafe. The judge's directions on DNA evidence and summing up were adequate and balanced, and the jury's acceptance of the scientific evidence, which was uncontradicted, supports the safety of the conviction.

Parties
Appellant: C; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
DNA Evidence, Indecent Assault, Buggery, Rape, Alibi, Expert Evidence, Prosecutor's Fallacy
Criminal Law DNA Evidence Indecent Assault Buggery Rape Alibi Expert Evidence Prosecutor's Fallacy

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction is unsafe due to improper cross-examination of the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly direct the jury on DNA evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge's summing up was unfair or unbalanced regarding the defence case and alibi

Ratio Decidendi

The only established ground of appeal was the improper cross-examination of the appellant regarding his opinion, but this alone was insufficient to render the conviction unsafe. The judge's directions on DNA evidence and summing up were adequate and balanced, and the jury's acceptance of the scientific evidence, which was uncontradicted, supports the safety of the conviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed