CK, R v [2008] NICA 24 (21 May 2008)

CK, R v [2008] NICA 24 (21 May 2008)

The verdict on the indecent assault count was unsafe due to logical inconsistency with the jury's failure to agree on the directly related gross indecency charges. The trial judge erred in refusing to allow cross-examination and evidence regarding the complainant's alleged fabrication of other stories, as such evidence could have substantial probative value regarding her credibility. The convictions were therefore quashed.

Citation
[2008] NICA 24
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Applicant/defendant: CK
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
21 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction; Treated as Appeal
Outcome
Convictions quashed; leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; retrial to be considered.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Indecent Assault, Rape, Bad Character Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Unsafe Convictions, Cross Examination Limits
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Indecent Assault Rape Bad Character Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Unsafe Convictions Cross Examination Limits

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

CK

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction; Treated as Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence to support convictions for indecent assault and rape
  2. 2 Whether the verdicts were logically inconsistent and thus unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to allow cross-examination and evidence regarding the complainant's alleged bad character

Ratio Decidendi

The verdict on the indecent assault count was unsafe due to logical inconsistency with the jury's failure to agree on the directly related gross indecency charges. The trial judge erred in refusing to allow cross-examination and evidence regarding the complainant's alleged fabrication of other stories, as such evidence could have substantial probative value regarding her credibility. The convictions were therefore quashed.

Court Disposition

Convictions quashed; leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; retrial to be considered.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Convictions quashed