Appeal against conviction for rape – ‘(1) the trial was unfair because of impermissible interventions by the judge, particularly when the appellant was giving evidence; (2) the directions given by the judge relating to character, drunkenness and a motivation to lie were misdirections, and the judge should have invited submissions from counsel about his decision to give a propensity direction in relation to the bad character evidence; and (3) there was an irregularity with the jury because there was evidence that jurors ignored the judge’s warning not to conduct internet research and a juror complained of impermissible pressure brought by other jurors to deliver what the juror termed the judge’s verdict of guilty.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Dingemans
Mr Justice Picken
And
Her Honour Judge Walden-Smith
Citations:
[2020] EWCA Crim 1674
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Crime
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.682459
