Smith, R v

The jury was properly directed on incitement, fantasy, and burden of proof; the convictions were safe. Sentences for incitement must be proportionate to the seriousness and potential for harm, but the original sentences were manifestly excessive and reduced accordingly.

Parties: Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Michael Liam Smith; Appellant: Stephen Turner
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 05 July 2004
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: Smith's appeal against conviction dismissed; both appellants' appeals against sentence allowed in part.
Legal Topics: Incitement, Sexual Offences, Sentencing, Burden of Proof

Criminal Law Incitement Sexual Offences Sentencing Burden of Proof

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Michael Liam Smith

Appellant

Stephen Turner

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of incitement
2 Whether the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the approach to evidence of fantasy
3 Whether the burden of proof was properly explained

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Smith's appeal against conviction dismissed; both appellants' appeals against sentence allowed in part.

Orders

Sentences for rape counts reduced to nine years' imprisonment (six years commensurate, three years longer than commensurate) plus five years extended licence (total fourteen years).
Sentences for indecent assault counts reduced to seven years (five years commensurate, two years longer than commensurate), no extended licence.