C, R v

C, R v

The convictions are unsafe because the medical evidence presented at trial, which was treated as decisive, is now shown by fresh expert evidence to be non-specific and not indicative of sexual abuse, undermining the basis on which the jury was invited to convict.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Colin John C
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Rape, Indecent Assault, Fresh Evidence, Unsafe Conviction, Medical Evidence
Criminal Law Rape Indecent Assault Fresh Evidence Unsafe Conviction Medical Evidence

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

Regina

Respondent

Colin John C

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh medical evidence renders the convictions unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the original medical evidence was properly interpreted and presented to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the convictions should be quashed in light of new expert opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions are unsafe because the medical evidence presented at trial, which was treated as decisive, is now shown by fresh expert evidence to be non-specific and not indicative of sexual abuse, undermining the basis on which the jury was invited to convict.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • Fresh medical evidence admitted under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
  • Convictions quashed