5 May 2023
The Court refused to admit the literature review as fresh evidence because it was generalised and added nothing material beyond the case‑specific s27 report; it held the three‑year starting point and six‑month uplifts were within range given aggravating features and s9A, and the discounts of 15% for background and 5% for remorse were appropriate; appeal dismissed.
26 Jul 2022
The Court admitted fresh evidence (affidavits of the appellant and a human resources professional), reassessed the gravity of the offending as low given strong mitigation, found a real and appreciable risk that convictions would disproportionately harm the appellant's employment, volunteer work and mental health, concluded the s107 threshold was met, and therefore allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, set aside the sentence and discharged the appellant without conviction.
29 Jul 2019
The Court held the summing-up and Crown closing did not produce a miscarriage of justice: use of statistics and of jurors' life experience was within permissible bounds and judicial directions on expert evidence were adequate; the proposed fresh evidence by Dr Hood was not sufficiently cogent or fresh to affect the safety of conviction and leave to adduce it was declined; conviction was upheld; however the sentence was reduced from five years to four years and six months to reflect additional mitigation (youth, separation from infant child, language and family circumstances).
9 May 2019
The Court held there was no real risk of bias from the juror's former police employment because she had left the force years earlier, had no connection to the case or investigators, had disclosed her past employment to the Judge and affirmed impartiality, and any procedural omission (Judge not notifying counsel) did not produce prejudice; defence counsel's decision not to call the appellant to avoid a highly prejudicial video was a competent tactical choice and did not cause a miscarriage of justice; sentencing was manifestly excessive and was reduced accordingly with MPI reduced to reflect t…
25 Oct 2016
The appeal is dismissed: the Court has no jurisdiction to determine cover under the 1972 Act absent a contemporaneous decision and record; under the 2001 Act s26(1)(c) a direct causal nexus is required between the physical injury and the mental injury and the medical evidence establishes no such nexus here because the 1979 injuries had healed and the appellant has no recollection of them, her distress arising from knowledge of the abuse rather than ongoing effects of the physical injuries.