or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of rape convictions, on the grounds that the trial judge was entitled to refuse an application for a direction and let the case go to the jury on the basis that wile the complainant's performance in cross-examination at trial was such that he had not substantiated in any way what he had said during an earlier interview, he never resiled from his central allegations.
Criminal law – appeal of rape convictions – appellant is the complainant’s uncle – application for a direction – whether the complainant's performance in cross-examination at trial was such that he had not substantiated in any way what he had said during the course of the s. 16 interview – complainant has never resiled from his central allegations – trial judge was very definitely entitled to rule on the application as he did – appeal dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.