Campbell, R v
The judge correctly applied the law and found no proper evidential basis to allege falsity of the earlier allegations; the material did not justify permitting the proposed cross-examination under either section 41 of the 1999 Act or section 100 of the 2003 Act. The convictions were not unsafe.
- Parties
- Applicant: Wayne Campbell; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 13 April 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
- Legal Topics
- Rape, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Admissibility of Evidence, Cross Examination, Bad Character Evidence, Sexual Offences
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wayne Campbell
Applicant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave should be granted to cross-examine the complainant on previous allegations of sexual misconduct
- 2 Whether section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 or section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies to the proposed cross-examination
- 3 Whether there was a proper evidential basis for asserting that previous allegations made by the complainant were false
Ratio Decidendi
The judge correctly applied the law and found no proper evidential basis to allege falsity of the earlier allegations; the material did not justify permitting the proposed cross-examination under either section 41 of the 1999 Act or section 100 of the 2003 Act. The convictions were not unsafe.
Court Disposition
Renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment