R v EGC

R v EGC

The conviction on count 3 was unsafe because the jury was not directed that they had to be sure, based on clear positive evidence independent of the act itself, that the applicant knew his conduct was seriously wrong at the relevant age. The conviction on count 2 was not unsafe as the jury was properly directed and there was no real risk that the error on count 3 affected their verdict on count 2.

Parties
Appellant: EGC; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Doli Incapax, Appeals, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Doli Incapax Appeals Jury Directions

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EGC

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure to direct the jury on the presumption of doli incapax rendered the conviction on count 3 unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the failure to direct the jury on count 3 affected the safety of the conviction on count 2

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction on count 3 was unsafe because the jury was not directed that they had to be sure, based on clear positive evidence independent of the act itself, that the applicant knew his conduct was seriously wrong at the relevant age. The conviction on count 2 was not unsafe as the jury was properly directed and there was no real risk that the error on count 3 affected their verdict on count 2.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against conviction on count 3 granted
  • Conviction on count 3 quashed