Prince, R. v [2005] EWCA Crim 2910 (17 November 2005)

Prince, R. v [2005] EWCA Crim 2910 (17 November 2005)

The conviction was quashed because the complainant's credibility was significantly damaged by false and inconsistent statements in her compensation application, and the scientific evidence was insufficiently conclusive to support the conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Crim 2910
Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant: Ricardo Prince
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction After Reference by Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Rape, Fresh Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses, DNA Evidence, Unsafe Conviction
Criminal Law Rape Fresh Evidence Credibility of Witnesses DNA Evidence Unsafe Conviction

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

Ricardo Prince

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction After Reference by Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for rape is safe in light of fresh evidence affecting the complainant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the scientific (DNA) evidence is sufficient to support the conviction

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was quashed because the complainant's credibility was significantly damaged by false and inconsistent statements in her compensation application, and the scientific evidence was insufficiently conclusive to support the conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction for rape quashed.