Gabbai v R. [2019] EWCA Crim 2287 (20 December 2019)

Gabbai v R. [2019] EWCA Crim 2287 (20 December 2019)

The convictions were unsafe because the trial judge wrongly excluded evidence of the complainant NR's previous inconsistent or false complaints, which was relevant and admissible under Section 100 CJA 2003, and wrongly allowed cross-admissibility of the complainants' evidence without proper notice or timely ruling, resulting in unfairness. The route to verdict document was deficient regarding intentional penetration, compounding the risk of an unsafe conviction.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 2287
Parties
Appellant: Edward Gabbai; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Offences, Evidence, Bad Character Evidence, Cross Admissibility, Jury Directions, Consent, Reasonable Belief in Consent, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Section 100 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Offences Evidence Bad Character Evidence Cross Admissibility Jury Directions Consent +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Gabbai

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in jury directions regarding intentional penetration for rape
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence of previous inconsistent or false complaints by the complainant (NR)
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence of the complainant's (VG) interest in rough sex

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were unsafe because the trial judge wrongly excluded evidence of the complainant NR's previous inconsistent or false complaints, which was relevant and admissible under Section 100 CJA 2003, and wrongly allowed cross-admissibility of the complainants' evidence without proper notice or timely ruling, resulting in unfairness. The route to verdict document was deficient regarding intentional penetration, compounding the risk of an unsafe conviction.

Court Disposition

Convictions quashed

Orders

  • Convictions quashed as unsafe
  • Consideration of any applications concerning re-trial reserved