The court considered when the inconsistenceis in a prosecution became such as to require the judge to intervene in what was otherwise a jury question.
Held: In exceptional cases ‘where the inconsistencies (whether in the witness’s evidence viewed by itself or between him and other prosecution witnesses) are so great that any reasonable tribunal would be forced to the conclusion that the witness is untruthful. In such a case (and in the absence of other evidence capable of founding a case) the judge should withdraw the case from the jury’.
Citations:
[2005] EWCA 242
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – H, Regina v CACD 25-Apr-2006
The defendant youth appealed his conviction and sentence for rape by oral penetration of a six or seven year old boy. He complained that the evidence contained such inconsistences that the case should not have proceeded. Complaint was also made that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.241327