PR, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 2741 (24 November 2010)

PR, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 2741 (24 November 2010)

The trial judge was entitled to leave counts 24 and 25 to the jury as the statutory conditions for admissibility of the previous inconsistent statement were met, and the inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts did not render the convictions unsafe. The summing-up, while not ideal, covered the defence case and legal directions sufficiently to ensure a fair trial. No material irregularity or misdirection rendered the convictions unsafe.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Crim 2741
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: PR
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Indecent Assault, Incest, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Jury Directions, Cross Admissibility, Previous Inconsistent Statements, Specimen Counts, Special Measures Evidence
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Indecent Assault Incest Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Jury Directions Cross Admissibility +3 more

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

PR

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting a submission of no case to answer on counts 24 and 25
  2. 2 Whether the summing-up was deficient in directions of law and summary of the defence case
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to give necessary directions on character evidence, cross-admissibility, and collusion

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to leave counts 24 and 25 to the jury as the statutory conditions for admissibility of the previous inconsistent statement were met, and the inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts did not render the convictions unsafe. The summing-up, while not ideal, covered the defence case and legal directions sufficiently to ensure a fair trial. No material irregularity or misdirection rendered the convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction appeal dismissed
  • Sentence on counts 19 and 20 reduced from 3 years to 2 years' imprisonment concurrent