W -v- AG [2017] JCA 196 (22 November 2017)

W -v- AG [2017] JCA 196 (22 November 2017)

The Deputy Bailiff was correct to refuse cross-examination of Complainant 1 regarding the previous allegation against F because there was no proper evidential basis to assert that the complaint was false. The material relied upon by the Appellant, including the police report and F's denial, did not meet the threshold required to permit such questioning. Allowing cross-examination would have risked a collateral trial within the trial, contrary to established legal principles.

Citation
[2017] JCA 196
Parties
Appellant: W; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Cross Examination of Complainants, Previous False Complaints, Evidential Basis for Cross Examination, Appeals Against Conviction
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Cross Examination of Complainants Previous False Complaints Evidential Basis for Cross Examination Appeals Against Conviction

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of Complainant 1 regarding an alleged previous false complaint of rape against another individual (F)
  2. 2 Whether there was a proper evidential basis for asserting the previous complaint was false
  3. 3 Whether the refusal rendered the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Bailiff was correct to refuse cross-examination of Complainant 1 regarding the previous allegation against F because there was no proper evidential basis to assert that the complaint was false. The material relied upon by the Appellant, including the police report and F's denial, did not meet the threshold required to permit such questioning. Allowing cross-examination would have risked a collateral trial within the trial, contrary to established legal principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed