Price, R. v

Price, R. v

The evidence, if accepted, was capable of amounting to indecent assault as the appellant stroked the complainant's legs just below the knee, not merely touched her boots. There was no factual basis for mistaken touching, and the judge's minor misdirection regarding the complainant's state of mind did not affect the safety of the conviction. The reference to the appellant's 'shoe fetish' was properly admitted and did not render the trial unfair.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: David Arthur Price
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Jury Directions, Admissibility of Evidence, Mistaken Belief, Complainant's State of Mind
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Jury Directions Admissibility of Evidence Mistaken Belief Complainant's State of Mind

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

Parties

Regina

Respondent

David Arthur Price

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge misdirected the jury as to indecency
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to direct the jury on mistaken touching
  3. 3 Whether the judge misdirected the jury regarding the complainant's state of mind

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, if accepted, was capable of amounting to indecent assault as the appellant stroked the complainant's legs just below the knee, not merely touched her boots. There was no factual basis for mistaken touching, and the judge's minor misdirection regarding the complainant's state of mind did not affect the safety of the conviction. The reference to the appellant's 'shoe fetish' was properly admitted and did not render the trial unfair.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld