9 Sept 2021
Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal would require re‑examination of factual findings below about whether the defendant honestly believed the truth of his statements and whether the replies exceeded necessity for qualified privilege; no question of general or public importance and no appearance of miscarriage of justice.
6 Jul 2016
Although the trial judge omitted a specific direction linking the defendant's intoxication to his honest belief in consent and did not explicitly ask the jury to determine whether the act constituting the assault into the alley was distinct from earlier touching, the omissions were harmless: the evidential foundation for intoxication affecting honest belief was weak and the defendant's own evidence showed he changed conduct by steering the complainant into the alley, making the alley entry a distinct act; consequently the conviction was reasonable and the sentence (starting point three years…