R v Daniel James Roberts

R v Daniel James Roberts

None of the proposed grounds, considered separately or cumulatively, rendered the conviction unsafe. The relevant evidence was before the jury, discrepancies were minor, and the fresh evidence did not materially assist the applicant. There was no error of law or procedural irregularity. The applications for leave to appeal, extension of time, to vary grounds, and to adduce fresh evidence were all refused.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Applicant: Daniel James Roberts
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction and Related Applications
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Child Sexual Offences, Appeal Against Conviction, Fresh Evidence, Good Character Evidence, Procedural Delay
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Sexual Offences Appeal Against Conviction Fresh Evidence Good Character Evidence Procedural Delay

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

Daniel James Roberts

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction is unsafe due to failure to adduce the complainant's second ABE interview
  2. 2 Whether failure to call character evidence or other family witnesses rendered the conviction unsafe
  3. 3 Whether evidence of coaching was adequately explored

Ratio Decidendi

None of the proposed grounds, considered separately or cumulatively, rendered the conviction unsafe. The relevant evidence was before the jury, discrepancies were minor, and the fresh evidence did not materially assist the applicant. There was no error of law or procedural irregularity. The applications for leave to appeal, extension of time, to vary grounds, and to adduce fresh evidence were all refused.

Court Disposition

applications refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Application for extension of time refused