The appellants were convicted by a jury. Subsequently, Connell J heard care proceedings in which he had to consider the same allegations made against the appellants in the criminal trial.
Connell J said: ‘However, this evidence is not sufficient to satisfy me that he did not commit these offences and the situation in which this court is left is that I do not know whether or not he committed the conspiracy offences although I do know that he has been convicted of them . . it is not my function in any way to act as some form of appellate court from the verdicts of the jury and therefore I must proceed on the basis that Jay did commit the offences of which he has been convicted.’ The defendant appealed.
Held: The court was therefore prepared to ‘consider’ Connell J’s judgment in order to examine whether any material in it might throw light on the safety, or otherwise of the convictions. It would or might provide ‘fresh evidence’.
Citations:
[1996] 1 CAR 455
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Criminal Practice, Children
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.244674