MJW, R v [2000] EWCA Crim 12 (17 February 2000)

The judge was entitled to exercise discretion not to give a special warning regarding the complainant's credibility. The summing-up was sufficient, and there were no features requiring a corroboration direction. The jury had every opportunity to consider the evidence and reach a true verdict. The conviction is safe.

Citation: [2000] EWCA Crim 12
Parties: Appellant: M J W; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 17 February 2000
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Rape, Judicial Directions, Credibility of Witnesses, Corroboration, Summation, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Criminal Law Rape Judicial Directions Credibility of Witnesses Corroboration Summation Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

M J W

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

1 Whether the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury regarding the complainant's credibility and the need for caution or corroboration
2 Whether the judge should have discharged the jury due to statements made by prosecuting counsel
3 Whether the judge erred by not allowing counsel to address the court on the need for a Makanjuola direction

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed