The court considered cases referred to it by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Each related to convictions for sexual assaults on children in care. New material including several untrue allegations by the complainants suggested that the convictions might be unsafe.
Held: The evidence of other similar allegations and history of unreliability made the convictions safe. The court criticised the delay in the presentation of the cases, and the manner of presentation: ‘The overriding objective, as set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (SI 2005 No 384) (‘the Rules’) Part 1 Rule 1.1(2)(e), requires all criminal cases to be dealt with ‘efficiently and expeditiously’. This equally applies to criminal appeals’
Judges:
Longmore LJ, Gloster J, Openshaw J
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Crim 1353, Times 26-Jul-2006
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Percival CACD 19-Jun-1998
There was an additional burden on a judge in a case involving very old allegations of sexual abuse to use his imprimatur to emphasise to the jury the additional difficulties faced by a defendant and the high burden of proof. . .
Cited – Regina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
Cited by:
See Also – Siddall, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 16-Mar-2009
The claimant had been imprisoned then released after his conviction for sexual assaults. He appealed against rejection of his claim for compensation. The criterion for compensation was demonstrating that something had ‘gone seriously wrong in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.243064