MM v R. (Rev 1) [2011] EWCA Crim 1291 (20 May 2011)

MM v R. (Rev 1) [2011] EWCA Crim 1291 (20 May 2011)

The trial judge exercised his discretion to discharge the jury for appropriate reasons in the interests of justice, not for improper or capricious motives. There was no objective evidence of bias, and the judge was right to refuse recusal. The conduct of the retrial and summing up were fair and balanced. The exclusion of cross-examination on previous sexual behaviour was correct under section 41 YJCEA 1999, as the alleged behaviour was not sufficiently similar or proximate in time to be probative. The judge's direction that the defendant's psychiatric condition was not relevant to the objective reasonableness of his belief in consent was correct in law. The convictions were safe.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Crim 1291
Parties
Appellant: MM; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Retrial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentence upheld.
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Assault, Jury Discharge, Judicial Bias, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Reasonable Belief in Consent, Mental Disorder and Criminal Responsibility
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Assault Jury Discharge Judicial Bias Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Reasonable Belief in Consent Mental Disorder and Criminal Responsibility

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MM

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge wrongly discharged the jury and failed to recuse himself, amounting to an abuse of process or bias
  2. 2 Whether the judge's conduct and summing up at retrial were unbalanced or unfair
  3. 3 Whether the judge wrongly excluded cross-examination on previous sexual behaviour under section 41 YJCEA 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge exercised his discretion to discharge the jury for appropriate reasons in the interests of justice, not for improper or capricious motives. There was no objective evidence of bias, and the judge was right to refuse recusal. The conduct of the retrial and summing up were fair and balanced. The exclusion of cross-examination on previous sexual behaviour was correct under section 41 YJCEA 1999, as the alleged behaviour was not sufficiently similar or proximate in time to be probative. The judge's direction that the defendant's psychiatric condition was not relevant to the objective reasonableness of his belief in consent was correct in law. The convictions were safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentence upheld.