R v Frank Mooney
The amendment of the indictment was proper and caused no injustice; the evidence was sufficient to sustain the amended indictment; all procedural steps were fair; and the sentence imposed was just, proportionate, and within the appropriate range given the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences.
- Parties
- Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Frank Mooney
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Indictment, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Sexual Offences Against Children, Procedural Fairness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Respondent
Frank Mooney
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in allowing amendment of the indictment during trial
- 2 Whether the conviction was unsafe due to alleged vagueness of complainant's evidence and procedural unfairness
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
Ratio Decidendi
The amendment of the indictment was proper and caused no injustice; the evidence was sufficient to sustain the amended indictment; all procedural steps were fair; and the sentence imposed was just, proportionate, and within the appropriate range given the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences.
Court Disposition
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed
Orders
- Convictions stand
- Renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence 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