AD, R. v

AD, R. v

The drafting errors in counts 8 and 9 were clerical and did not cause prejudice or unfairness; the appellant was tried and convicted of the correct offence under the correct Act. The evidence of complaints was properly admitted and the judge's directions were sufficient. Repeated complaints were admissible and the jury was properly left to assess their weight. The diagnosis of thrush was not treated as evidence of abuse and no misdirection occurred.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: AD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indictment Defects, Sexual Offences, Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay, Consistency of Complaints, Sentencing
Criminal Law Indictment Defects Sexual Offences Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Consistency of Complaints Sentencing

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

AD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether drafting errors in indictment render convictions unsafe
  2. 2 Admissibility and treatment of prior complaints as evidence
  3. 3 Impact of repeated complaints on credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The drafting errors in counts 8 and 9 were clerical and did not cause prejudice or unfairness; the appellant was tried and convicted of the correct offence under the correct Act. The evidence of complaints was properly admitted and the judge's directions were sufficient. Repeated complaints were admissible and the jury was properly left to assess their weight. The diagnosis of thrush was not treated as evidence of abuse and no misdirection occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions upheld
  • Sentence of eight years imprisonment affirmed