RG v R.

RG v R.

The convictions were not unsafe as the verdicts were logically consistent, the judge's directions were proper, the admission and limitation of bad character evidence were justified, and there was no basis for discharging the jury. The sentence was appropriate given the seriousness, escalation, and aggravating factors, and did not exceed guidelines for multiple offences.

Parties
Applicant: RG; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Appeals, Bad Character Evidence, Jury Discharge, Sentencing
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Appeals Bad Character Evidence Jury Discharge 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RG

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions were unsafe due to alleged inconsistency of verdicts
  2. 2 Whether the admission of bad character evidence was improper
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in failing to discharge the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were not unsafe as the verdicts were logically consistent, the judge's directions were proper, the admission and limitation of bad character evidence were justified, and there was no basis for discharging the jury. The sentence was appropriate given the seriousness, escalation, and aggravating factors, and did not exceed guidelines for multiple offences.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused.

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • Sentence of 8 years imprisonment upheld