||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 353 (Jul)
||Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Ouseley J (judgment delivered extempore)
||Gwawr Thomas (instructed by Henscott Solicitors) for the appellant.
||James Boyd (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the respondent.
||26 July 2013
Criminal Law - Trial - Assault - Appellant being convicted of assault against victim - Appellant appealing by way of case stated - Whether justices misdirecting selves as to relevance of lies told by appellant - Whether proper in circumstances to draw adverse inferences from fact appellant's evidence in court differing from prepared statement in interview - .
Criminal Law Trial. In December 2011, the appellant was convicted of assault against the victim. The justices found that an intimate relationship had existed between the victim and the appellant and that the appellant had not wished to admit to it in court because she had felt that her family would disapprove. They further found that the relationship had deteriorated and that there had been an argument during which the appellant had bit, slapped and attempted to strangle the victim with a scarf. The appellant appealed by way of case stated from the conviction decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the justices had not misdirected themselves as to the relevance of the lies told by the appellant and that it was clear that the justices had applied the correct approach to the drawing of adverse inferences from matters the appellant should properly have mentioned in interview.
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- 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