Conn, R v

The trial judge applied the correct legal test regarding cross-examination on previous allegations, properly evaluated the evidence, and her conclusions were justified. The summing-up on consent and belief in consent was adequate given the evidence. The sentences imposed were within guideline ranges and not manifestly excessive.

Parties: Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Mervyn Harold Conn
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 27 April 2018
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome: renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed
Legal Topics: Sexual Offences, Rape, Indecent Assault, Evidence, Cross Examination, Sentencing, Appeals

Criminal Law Sexual Offences Rape Indecent Assault Evidence Cross Examination Sentencing Appeals

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Mervyn Harold Conn

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing leave to cross-examine the complainant about previous allegations of sexual assault
2 Whether the summing-up on consent and belief in consent was adequate
3 Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed