S v R.

S v R.

The conviction was unsafe due to inadequate jury directions regarding contradictory hearsay evidence from the complainant, whose accounts were untested by cross-examination.

Parties
Appellant: S; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
convictions quashed, retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Jury Directions, Sexual Offences, Fair Trial, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Jury Directions Sexual Offences Fair Trial 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hearsay evidence from a non-attending complainant can be admitted when contradictory accounts exist
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in failing to stop the case under section 125 Criminal Justice Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether the jury received adequate directions regarding contradictory evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe due to inadequate jury directions regarding contradictory hearsay evidence from the complainant, whose accounts were untested by cross-examination.

Court Disposition

convictions quashed, retrial ordered

Orders

  • Convictions on four counts quashed
  • Retrial ordered