Wilkinson, R v [2011] NICA 29 (24 June 2011)

Wilkinson, R v [2011] NICA 29 (24 June 2011)

Given the diametrically opposed cases—consensual sex versus non-consent with knowledge—the evidence did not support a possible inference of genuine mistaken belief in consent. The trial judge's directions, though lacking detailed definition of recklessness, did not render the conviction unsafe as the jury's verdict demonstrated acceptance of the complainant's account.

Citation
[2011] NICA 29
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant/defendant: William Wilkinson
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
24 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Attempted Rape, Consent, Mens Rea, Recklessness, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Rape Attempted Rape Consent Mens Rea Recklessness Jury Directions

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

William Wilkinson

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on mens rea and recklessness were adequate
  2. 2 Whether the summing up fairly and adequately put the defence case regarding the telephone call

Ratio Decidendi

Given the diametrically opposed cases—consensual sex versus non-consent with knowledge—the evidence did not support a possible inference of genuine mistaken belief in consent. The trial judge's directions, though lacking detailed definition of recklessness, did not render the conviction unsafe as the jury's verdict demonstrated acceptance of the complainant's account.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed