Winter, R v

Winter, R v

The trial judge was correct to exclude cross-examination about the complainant's relationship with 'S' under section 41, as the questions concerned her sexual behaviour and were intended to impugn credibility. The exclusion did not render the trial unfair or breach Article 6 ECHR. The directions on distress were adequate, the verdicts were consistent, and the application to admit new evidence from KM was properly refused.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Robert Michael Winter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Cross Examination, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Consent, Credibility of Witnesses, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Sexual Offences Cross Examination Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Consent Credibility of Witnesses Admissibility of Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Robert Michael Winter

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing leave to cross-examine the complainant about her relationship with 'S' under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of such evidence deprived the appellant of a fair trial
  3. 3 Whether the judge's directions on distress were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to exclude cross-examination about the complainant's relationship with 'S' under section 41, as the questions concerned her sexual behaviour and were intended to impugn credibility. The exclusion did not render the trial unfair or breach Article 6 ECHR. The directions on distress were adequate, the verdicts were consistent, and the application to admit new evidence from KM was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All applications made by the appellant fail
  • Grounds of appeal in respect of which leave was granted are dismissed