Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The conviction for the Bail Act offence was unlawful and must be quashed due to the Rule of Specialty. The eight-year extended sentence for sexual assault was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's dangerousness, aggravating factors, and impact on the justice system.
Source excerpt
BPA v NXT [2026] EWHC 1095 (KB) (08 May 2026)
The High Court struck out some defective claims, ordered amendments and a medical report, and granted anonymity in a case alleging sexual assault and harassment.
The High Court struck out parts of a sexual assault and harassment claim, ordered amended particulars and a medical report, and granted anonymity to both parties.
Ball, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 483 (27 March 2026)
The Court Martial Appeal Court refused leave to appeal conviction but allowed the sentence appeal, reducing a nine-year rape sentence to seven and a half years.
The judge's refusal to allow the appellant to sit outside the dock did not render the trial unfair, as the appellant was able to present his case, cross-examine witnesses, and make submissions effectively; the trial remained fair and the conviction is safe.
Source excerpt
JFH, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 206 (11 February 2026)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a sentence appeal, holding the judge was entitled to treat the victim’s psychological and physical harm as category 1 harm.
HEF, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 172 (06 February 2026)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a youth defendant’s appeal against convictions for rape and sexual offences, rejecting arguments about adverse inference and consent directions.
Mullen, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 133 (30 January 2026)
The Court of Appeal held that sentences for rape and sexual assault were unduly lenient and increased the total sentence from 11 to 13 years.
The High Court rejected challenges to MOD communications policies on freedom of expression, human rights and vires, but found a breach of the Equality Act PSED.
On the specific facts, the filming was intimately and integrally connected to the sexual touching, both temporally and in purpose. The failure to disclose the filming deprived the complainant of the freedom to make an informed choice, thus negating consent under section 74. The judge was correct to leave the issue to the jury, and there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the complainant did not consent to the filming or the sexual touching.
Source excerpt
Explore more
