R v Jannick Jensen

R v Jannick Jensen

The grounds advanced, including alleged disclosure failures, jury irregularity, and tactical decisions by counsel, did not render the conviction unsafe. The trial judge acted within discretion, disclosure was adequate, and there was no evidential basis for the fresh grounds. All applications are refused.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Jannick Jensen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
all applications refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Appeals, Jury Irregularity, Disclosure, Consent
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Appeals Jury Irregularity Disclosure Consent

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

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Jannick Jensen

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction was unsafe due to alleged disclosure failures and refusal to allow inspection of the complainant's phone download
  2. 2 Whether there was a material irregularity due to juror misconduct
  3. 3 Whether fresh grounds based on alleged evidential and advocacy failings rendered the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds advanced, including alleged disclosure failures, jury irregularity, and tactical decisions by counsel, did not render the conviction unsafe. The trial judge acted within discretion, disclosure was adequate, and there was no evidential basis for the fresh grounds. All applications are refused.

Court Disposition

all applications refused

Orders

  • Permission to add further grounds of appeal refused
  • Application for extension of time refused