L, R v

L, R v

Fresh medical evidence does not undermine the safety of the conviction as it neither supports nor refutes the allegations; the jury would still have relied on non-medical evidence, particularly the credibility of L.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: L
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Fresh Evidence, Credibility, Medical Evidence, Appeal Grounds
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Fresh Evidence Credibility Medical Evidence Appeal Grounds

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Regina

Respondent

L

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh medical evidence undermines the safety of the conviction
  2. 2 Whether previously undisclosed police material would have affected cross-examination and credibility

Ratio Decidendi

Fresh medical evidence does not undermine the safety of the conviction as it neither supports nor refutes the allegations; the jury would still have relied on non-medical evidence, particularly the credibility of L.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal against conviction dismissed