AG -v- H [2013] JCA 063 (21 March 2013)

AG -v- H [2013] JCA 063 (21 March 2013)

The appeal against conviction was dismissed because the counts were properly joined, the evidence was mutually supportive and cross-admissible, the trial judge's directions were correct, the limitation on cross-examination was within discretion, the acts alleged were inherently indecent, and non-disclosure of potential civil claims or therapy records did not render the convictions unsafe. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances.

Citation
[2013] JCA 063
Parties
Appellant: H; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
21 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Indecent Assault, Joinder and Severance, Cross Admissibility of Evidence, Non Disclosure, Cross Examination Limits, Sentencing, Compensation Orders
Criminal Law Indecent Assault Joinder and Severance Cross Admissibility of Evidence Non Disclosure Cross Examination Limits Sentencing Compensation Orders

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

Parties

H

Appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counts relating to different complainants should have been severed or tried together
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of one complainant was cross-admissible to support the evidence of others
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in limiting cross-examination regarding the complainant's abortion

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction was dismissed because the counts were properly joined, the evidence was mutually supportive and cross-admissible, the trial judge's directions were correct, the limitation on cross-examination was within discretion, the acts alleged were inherently indecent, and non-disclosure of potential civil claims or therapy records did not render the convictions unsafe. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Orders

  • Appellant to serve 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment on each count concurrently.
  • Order under Article 5 of the Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010.