Taylor v The Queen [2014] EWCA Crim 618 (02 April 2014)

Taylor v The Queen [2014] EWCA Crim 618 (02 April 2014)

The trial judge was entitled to exclude the proposed cross-examination regarding the complainant's alleged lies about prior sexual experience as it lacked substantial probative value and did not satisfy the statutory tests; the summing up was fair and did not undermine the safety of the conviction; the sentence was within the appropriate range and based on the evidence consistent with the jury's verdicts.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Crim 618
Parties
Appellant: Christopher David Taylor; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Bad Character Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Summing Up, Sentencing
Criminal Law Sexual Assault Bad Character Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Summing Up Sentencing

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher David Taylor

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of the complainant's alleged lies about prior sexual experience
  2. 2 Whether the summing up by the trial judge was unfair or undermined the safety of the conviction
  3. 3 Whether the sentence was imposed on an incorrect factual basis

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to exclude the proposed cross-examination regarding the complainant's alleged lies about prior sexual experience as it lacked substantial probative value and did not satisfy the statutory tests; the summing up was fair and did not undermine the safety of the conviction; the sentence was within the appropriate range and based on the evidence consistent with the jury's verdicts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence upheld
  • Clerical error in the prevention order record to be corrected