MB, R. v [1999] EWCA Crim 2274 (04 November 1999)

The conviction was unsafe because the jury was not properly directed regarding adverse inference under Section 34 and supporting evidence, leading to a real risk of prejudice.

Citation: [1999] EWCA Crim 2274
Parties: Appellant: Mr B; Respondent: Crown; Complainant: S; Complainant: D
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 04 November 1999
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome: appeal allowed; conviction quashed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics: Rape, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, Adverse Inference, Corroboration, Retrial

Criminal Law Rape Unlawful Sexual Intercourse Adverse Inference Corroboration Retrial

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Mr B

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

1 Whether the judge's direction on Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was correct
2 Whether the jury was properly directed regarding supporting evidence and corroboration
3 Whether the conviction was unsafe due to misdirection

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe because the jury was not properly directed regarding adverse inference under Section 34 and supporting evidence, leading to a real risk of prejudice.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed; retrial ordered

Orders

fresh indictment to be preferred within seven days unless extended
appellant to be re-arraigned within seven days