DS, R v [2008] NICA 19 (14 March 2008)

DS, R v [2008] NICA 19 (14 March 2008)

The trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of R about the discrepancy between her first and fourth statements regarding who had abused her. This aspect of the proposed cross-examination did not relate to sexual behaviour as defined by Article 28, but to inconsistent statements relevant to her...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] NICA 19
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Appellant/defendant: D S
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
14 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Cross Examination, Credibility of Witnesses, Restriction on Sexual History Evidence, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Evidence Law Human Rights Law Sexual Offences Cross Examination Credibility of Witnesses Restriction on Sexual History Evidence Fair Trial Rights

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

D S

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing leave for the defence to cross-examine the complainant (R) about the circumstances and content of her fourth statement (20 August 2002) alleging sexual abuse by others, and whether this refusal rendered the convictions unsafe.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of R about the discrepancy between her first and fourth statements regarding who had abused her. This aspect of the proposed cross-examination did not relate to sexual behaviour as defined by Article 28, but to inconsistent statements relevant to her credibility. The jury was not made aware of these inconsistencies, and as R's credibility was central, the convictions on the relevant counts were rendered unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • The verdicts on the ten counts relating to R are quashed.