Williams v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 2516 (27 November 2012)

Williams v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 2516 (27 November 2012)

The reference to the medical article was not unfair or prejudicial; the judge's directions on specimen counts were sufficient; a Lucas direction was not required as the alleged lie was not relied upon as evidence of guilt; the absence of phone records was peripheral and did not prejudice the defence; and cross-examination was adequate. There was no basis to find the convictions unsafe.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Crim 2516
Parties
Appellant: Edmond Selwyn Williams; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Specimen Counts, Lucas Direction, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Criminal Law Rape Specimen Counts Lucas Direction Admissibility of Expert Evidence Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

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

Parties

Edmond Selwyn Williams

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reference to a medical article in expert evidence rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the judge misdirected the jury on specimen counts
  3. 3 Whether a Lucas direction was required regarding alleged lies by the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The reference to the medical article was not unfair or prejudicial; the judge's directions on specimen counts were sufficient; a Lucas direction was not required as the alleged lie was not relied upon as evidence of guilt; the absence of phone records was peripheral and did not prejudice the defence; and cross-examination was adequate. There was no basis to find the convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed