R v Joseph Raymond Annette-Norman

R v Joseph Raymond Annette-Norman

The absence of a section 34 direction and the form of the judge's directions on the burden and standard of proof did not render the convictions unsafe, as the applicant's defence was clearly set out, the directions were adequate, and the jury's verdicts reflected a proper understanding of the issues.

Parties
Applicant: Joseph Raymond Annette-Norman; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Offences, Appeal Procedure, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Offences Appeal Procedure 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Raymond Annette-Norman

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the absence of a section 34 direction regarding the applicant's 'no comment' interview rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the judge's directions on the burden and standard of proof for lack of consent and reasonable belief in consent were sufficiently clear

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of a section 34 direction and the form of the judge's directions on the burden and standard of proof did not render the convictions unsafe, as the applicant's defence was clearly set out, the directions were adequate, and the jury's verdicts reflected a proper understanding of the issues.

Court Disposition

application refused