Sharp, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 3077 (20 November 2012)
The conviction was unsafe because prejudicial evidence was introduced without proper notice or opportunity for the defence to respond, and the jury were not properly directed on how to treat this evidence. The cumulative effect of these errors rendered the conviction unsafe.
- Citation
- [2012] EWCA Crim 3077
- Parties
- Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Neil Sharp
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 20 November 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal allowed, conviction quashed, no retrial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Indecent Assault, Jury Directions, Bad Character Evidence, Retrial, Delay in Prosecution, Failure to Mention Facts in Interview
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Respondent
Neil Sharp
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judge's handling of prejudicial evidence rendered the conviction unsafe
- 2 Whether the jury were properly directed regarding delay and failure to mention facts in interview
- 3 Whether a retrial should be ordered after two inconclusive trials
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was unsafe because prejudicial evidence was introduced without proper notice or opportunity for the defence to respond, and the jury were not properly directed on how to treat this evidence. The cumulative effect of these errors rendered the conviction unsafe.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed, conviction quashed, no retrial ordered
Orders
- Conviction quashed
- No retrial to be ordered
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment