Coull, R. v

Coull, R. v

The judge's directions, when read as a whole, adequately warned the jury about the need to be sure of the independence of complainants before using their evidence cross-admissibly. The appellant's defence was not based on contamination but on fabrication for other motives. There was no misdirection rendering the convictions unsafe.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Ian Coull
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Assault, Cross Admissibility, Propensity, Jury Directions, Contamination, Collusion
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Assault Cross Admissibility Propensity Jury Directions Contamination Collusion

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Ian Coull

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on cross-admissibility and propensity
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to put the appellant's case on contamination
  3. 3 Whether there were factual misdirections rendering the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's directions, when read as a whole, adequately warned the jury about the need to be sure of the independence of complainants before using their evidence cross-admissibly. The appellant's defence was not based on contamination but on fabrication for other motives. There was no misdirection rendering the convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • No order as to costs