MM v R. (Rev 1)

MM v R. (Rev 1)

The trial judge exercised discretion appropriately in discharging the jury and ordering a retrial; there was no evidence of bias; the exclusion of cross-examination on previous sexual behaviour was correct; and the psychiatric evidence was not relevant to the objective test of reasonable belief in consent. The verdicts were safe.

Parties
Appellant: MM; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Assault, Mental Health and Criminal Responsibility, Judicial Bias, Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Assault Mental Health and Criminal Responsibility Judicial Bias Procedural Fairness Admissibility of 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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MM

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge wrongly discharged the jury and ordered a retrial
  2. 2 Whether the judge's conduct and summing up at retrial was biased
  3. 3 Whether the judge wrongly excluded cross-examination on previous sexual behaviour under section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge exercised discretion appropriately in discharging the jury and ordering a retrial; there was no evidence of bias; the exclusion of cross-examination on previous sexual behaviour was correct; and the psychiatric evidence was not relevant to the objective test of reasonable belief in consent. The verdicts were safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed