R v David Llewellyn Yeld
The conviction was not unsafe because the misdirection on consent was immaterial given the complainant's age and circumstances, the directions on bad character evidence and prior convictions were adequate, and the judge sufficiently addressed the fallibility of memory.
- Parties
- Applicant: David Llewellyn Yeld; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 12 May 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- application refused
- Legal Topics
- Rape, Indecent Assault, Bad Character Evidence, Fallibility of Memory, Jury Directions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Llewellyn Yeld
Applicant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge misdirected the jury on the elements of rape under section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956
- 2 Whether the judge properly directed the jury on bad character evidence and section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
- 3 Whether the judge adequately directed the jury on the fallibility of human memory
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was not unsafe because the misdirection on consent was immaterial given the complainant's age and circumstances, the directions on bad character evidence and prior convictions were adequate, and the judge sufficiently addressed the fallibility of memory.
Court Disposition
application refused
Orders
- application for extension of time refused
- application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment