AD, R. v [2016] EWCA Crim 454 (29 April 2016)

AD, R. v [2016] EWCA Crim 454 (29 April 2016)

The drafting errors in the indictment were clerical and did not cause prejudice or unfairness; all parties understood the substance of the charges, and the trial was conducted accordingly. The judge's directions on the evidence of complaints were proper and did not mislead the jury. The repeated complaints evidence was admissible, and there was no basis for the jury to treat the medical evidence as proof of abuse. The convictions were safe and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Crim 454
Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: AD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indictment Drafting Errors, Sexual Offences, Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay, Jury Directions, Criminal Procedure Rules, Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Indictment Drafting Errors Sexual Offences Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Jury Directions Criminal Procedure Rules Criminal Justice Act 2003

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

AD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether drafting errors in the indictment (wrong statutory section cited) rendered convictions unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting and directing the jury on evidence of complaints made by victims to third parties
  3. 3 Whether repeated complaints evidence was properly admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The drafting errors in the indictment were clerical and did not cause prejudice or unfairness; all parties understood the substance of the charges, and the trial was conducted accordingly. The judge's directions on the evidence of complaints were proper and did not mislead the jury. The repeated complaints evidence was admissible, and there was no basis for the jury to treat the medical evidence as proof of abuse. The convictions were safe and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions upheld
  • Sentence of eight years imprisonment upheld