Peter Andrew Holmes v R
The judge was entitled to find a case to answer on the counts left to the jury, and the directions given were proper. The acts found by the jury to have been committed by the appellant, for his sexual satisfaction, were capable of amounting to gross indecency. The convictions are safe and the sentence imposed was just and proportionate.
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Andrew Holmes; Respondent: Rex
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 31 January 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Indecency With a Child, Gross Indecency, Indecent Assault, Appeal Procedure, Sentencing
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Andrew Holmes
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the acts relied on by the prosecution amounted to 'gross indecency' under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960
- 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing the submission of no case to answer on certain counts
- 3 Whether the judge misdirected the jury as to the elements and nature of the offence
Ratio Decidendi
The judge was entitled to find a case to answer on the counts left to the jury, and the directions given were proper. The acts found by the jury to have been committed by the appellant, for his sexual satisfaction, were capable of amounting to gross indecency. The convictions are safe and the sentence imposed was just and proportionate.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal against conviction dismissed
- Appeal against sentence dismissed
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