Bill, R. v

Bill, R. v

The conviction for attempted abduction was quashed because the trial judge's direction that bad character evidence could make the appellant less likely to tell the truth was improper and may have confused the jury, rendering the conviction unsafe. The sentence for indecent assault was reduced as the original sentence was excessive given the facts. The Sexual Offences Prevention Order was upheld as proportionate. The convictions for making and possessing indecent images were upheld as the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Robert Edward Bill
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence, and Applications for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal against conviction for attempted abduction allowed and conviction quashed; re-trial ordered. Sentence for indecent assault reduced from 18 months to 9 months. Appeal against Sexual Offences Prevention Order dismissed. Application regarding indecent images convictions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Attempted Child Abduction, Indecent Assault, Making Indecent Photographs of a Child, Possession of Indecent Images, Bad Character Evidence, Sexual Offences Prevention Order, Sentencing, Re Trial
Criminal Law Attempted Child Abduction Indecent Assault Making Indecent Photographs of a Child Possession of Indecent Images Bad Character Evidence Sexual Offences Prevention Order Sentencing +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Robert Edward Bill

Appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admission of bad character evidence (Ty Mawr evidence) rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding bad character evidence and good character were proper
  3. 3 Whether the sentence for indecent assault was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction for attempted abduction was quashed because the trial judge's direction that bad character evidence could make the appellant less likely to tell the truth was improper and may have confused the jury, rendering the conviction unsafe. The sentence for indecent assault was reduced as the original sentence was excessive given the facts. The Sexual Offences Prevention Order was upheld as proportionate. The convictions for making and possessing indecent images were upheld as the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction for attempted abduction allowed and conviction quashed; re-trial ordered. Sentence for indecent assault reduced from 18 months to 9 months. Appeal against Sexual Offences Prevention Order dismissed. Application regarding indecent images convictions dismissed.

Orders

  • Conviction for attempted abduction (case 406) quashed and re-trial ordered on that count only.
  • Fresh indictment to be preferred and appellant to be re-arraigned within two months.