White, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 1929 (15 June 2010)

White, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 1929 (15 June 2010)

The conviction is unsafe because the trial judge misdirected the jury on the application of section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, giving an inappropriate direction both in summing-up and in response to the jury's question, and failed to explain the evidential burden or tailor the direction to the facts, thereby depriving the appellant of a fair trial.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Crim 1929
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Gavin White
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Consent, Judicial Directions, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Consent Judicial Directions Appeal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Gavin White

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the conviction is safe given the misdirection on consent

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is unsafe because the trial judge misdirected the jury on the application of section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, giving an inappropriate direction both in summing-up and in response to the jury's question, and failed to explain the evidential burden or tailor the direction to the facts, thereby depriving the appellant of a fair trial.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction quashed.