Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 325 (Oct)
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Judge:

Richards LJ, Grigson J and Sir John Blofeld
Representation James Newton-Price (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
  Peter Asteris (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
Judgment Dates: 26 October 2006

Catchwords

Criminal law - Trial - No case to answer - Rape - Assault by digital penetration - Whether sufficient evidence - Whether conviction unsafe.

The Case

In a case of a defendant who had raped and digitally penetrated his daughter, there had been a sufficient evidential basis entitling the judge to take the view that the case should be left to the jury. Moreover the judge had taken care to emphasise the weaknesses in the prosecution case in his summing up, and the jury had deliberated over a long period and still disbelieved the defendant. It followed that there was no proper basis upon which to interfere with the verdict and the conviction was not unsafe.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis®Library

  • The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
  • Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
  • Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary