EW, R v

EW, R v

The trial judge was entitled to find that a fair trial was possible despite the delay and absence of a key witness, as the issues were properly left to the jury with appropriate directions. The convictions were safe. However, the total sentence was manifestly excessive and should be reduced to reflect the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: E. W.; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Abuse of Process, Fair Trial, Historic Sexual Abuse, Jury Directions, Sentence Appeal
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Abuse of Process Fair Trial Historic Sexual Abuse Jury Directions Sentence Appeal

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. W.

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to stay proceedings as an abuse of process due to delay
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in rejecting a submission of no case to answer on certain counts
  3. 3 Whether the judge misdirected the jury regarding the date and circumstances of the alleged offences

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find that a fair trial was possible despite the delay and absence of a key witness, as the issues were properly left to the jury with appropriate directions. The convictions were safe. However, the total sentence was manifestly excessive and should be reduced to reflect the appellant's age, good character, health, and the principle of totality.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction upheld on all counts
  • Sentence reduced from eight years to six years' imprisonment: one year on count 2, five years consecutive on count 4, sentences on counts 5 to 7 to remain concurrent