C, R v

C, R v

The conviction was unsafe because material medical evidence, which showed the injury occurred after the appellant had no opportunity to commit the offence, was not disclosed to the defence or jury.

Parties
Appellant: Martin C; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Rape, Unsafe Conviction, Disclosure Obligations, Medical Evidence
Criminal Law Rape Unsafe Conviction Disclosure Obligations Medical Evidence

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

Parties

Martin C

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction was unsafe due to non-disclosure of material medical evidence
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution breached its duty of disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe because material medical evidence, which showed the injury occurred after the appellant had no opportunity to commit the offence, was not disclosed to the defence or jury.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • conviction quashed
  • Director of Public Prosecutions invited to review the case and consider further steps