R v Paul Mingo & Anor

R v Paul Mingo & Anor

The judge's directions did not dilute the standard of proof; the jury was properly instructed to be sure of guilt. The sentence imposed was below the guideline starting point for the modern equivalent offence and reflected appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors. No error of principle or manifest excess was found.

Parties
Applicant: Paul Mingo; Applicant: John Neale; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Standard of Proof, Historical Offences, Sentencing Guidelines, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Standard of Proof Historical Offences Sentencing Guidelines Jury Directions

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Mingo

Applicant

John Neale

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's directions to the jury diluted the standard of proof required for conviction
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed for historical sexual offences was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's directions did not dilute the standard of proof; the jury was properly instructed to be sure of guilt. The sentence imposed was below the guideline starting point for the modern equivalent offence and reflected appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors. No error of principle or manifest excess was found.

Court Disposition

applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused