Kennedy, R. v

Kennedy, R. v

There was no misrepresentation of facts by the trial judge; the evidence of cognitive impairment was properly summarised and was for the jury to assess. The prosecution's failure to disclose the 2015 psychology report was an oversight but did not affect the safety of the conviction as it was outdated and not directly relevant. The complainant was able to give evidence and follow proceedings, so further special measures were unnecessary. The sentence imposed was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given the facts and the judge's assessment of dangerousness.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Ryan Thomas Kennedy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused
Legal Topics
Kidnapping, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Possession of Criminal Property, Disclosure Obligations, Sentencing, Cognitive Impairment of Witness
Criminal Law Kidnapping Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Possession of Criminal Property Disclosure Obligations Sentencing Cognitive Impairment of Witness

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Ryan Thomas Kennedy

Applicant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's summing-up over-emphasised the complainant's cognitive impairment and rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution failed in its duty of disclosure regarding material relevant to the complainant's reliability and credibility
  3. 3 Whether the absence of further special measures for the complainant affected the fairness of the trial

Ratio Decidendi

There was no misrepresentation of facts by the trial judge; the evidence of cognitive impairment was properly summarised and was for the jury to assess. The prosecution's failure to disclose the 2015 psychology report was an oversight but did not affect the safety of the conviction as it was outdated and not directly relevant. The complainant was able to give evidence and follow proceedings, so further special measures were unnecessary. The sentence imposed was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given the facts and the judge's assessment of dangerousness.

Court Disposition

applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused