Jenkins, R v [2017] NICA 11 (27 February 2017)

Jenkins, R v [2017] NICA 11 (27 February 2017)

The court held that there was no substance to the grounds of appeal. The medical notes and records did not support the applicant's theory and the relationship between E and her father was poor. The evidence of complaint by H was properly admitted under Article 24(7) of the 2004 Order, and the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate. There was no basis to find the conviction unsafe.

Citation
[2017] NICA 11
Parties
Applicant: Wayne Jenkins; Respondent: Public Prosecution Service (PPS)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
27 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Indecent Assault, Admissibility of Complaint Evidence, Grounds for Appeal, Sexual Offences
Criminal Law Rape Indecent Assault Admissibility of Complaint Evidence Grounds for Appeal Sexual Offences

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne Jenkins

Applicant

Public Prosecution Service (PPS)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction is unsafe due to alleged evidential and procedural errors
  2. 2 Whether medical records and notes should have been admitted to support the applicant's case
  3. 3 Whether evidence of complaint by H was properly admitted under Article 24 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no substance to the grounds of appeal. The medical notes and records did not support the applicant's theory and the relationship between E and her father was poor. The evidence of complaint by H was properly admitted under Article 24(7) of the 2004 Order, and the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate. There was no basis to find the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal refused