R v LEJ

R v LEJ

The judge erred in law by relying on evidence not yet adduced and by concluding that inconsistencies rendered the complainant's account unreliable; a reasonable jury could have found the essential allegation proved, so the submission of no case to answer should not have been upheld.

Parties
Applicant: REX; Respondent: LEJ
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Ruling Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Submission of No Case to Answer, Sexual Offences, Appeals Procedure, Jury Function, Evidentiary Inconsistencies
Criminal Law Submission of No Case to Answer Sexual Offences Appeals Procedure Jury Function Evidentiary Inconsistencies

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

REX

Applicant

LEJ

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Ruling Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was correct to uphold the submission of no case to answer
  2. 2 Whether the judge usurped the jury's function by assessing reliability
  3. 3 Whether inconsistencies in evidence rendered the complainant's account unreliable

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by relying on evidence not yet adduced and by concluding that inconsistencies rendered the complainant's account unreliable; a reasonable jury could have found the essential allegation proved, so the submission of no case to answer should not have been upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • permission to appeal granted
  • fresh trial ordered pursuant to section 61(4) Criminal Justice Act 2003