TW, R v

TW, R v

The trial judge was correct to restrict cross-examination under section 41 as the proposed questions related to sexual behaviour and did not fall within the exceptions. The verdicts were not logically inconsistent as the jury could reasonably distinguish between disputed and undisputed events.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: TW
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Cross Examination, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Inconsistent Verdicts
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Cross Examination Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Inconsistent Verdicts

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

Parties

Regina

Respondent

TW

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in restricting cross-examination of the complainant under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether the verdicts of guilty were inconsistent with the acquittals

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to restrict cross-examination under section 41 as the proposed questions related to sexual behaviour and did not fall within the exceptions. The verdicts were not logically inconsistent as the jury could reasonably distinguish between disputed and undisputed events.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed