ABUSE

Where there were nine counts of indecent assault by a doctor on women patients the counts were properly joined and there was no reason for the judge to sever. However, the judge failed to correctly direct the jury on the mutual supportability of evidence between groups of offences and the convictions involving improper touching and touching patient’s breasts were unsafe.

[2004] EWCA Crim 540

A defendant’s appeal was dismissed where failure to call a witness was not a product of oversight but a reasoned decision that was open to competent counsel and solicitors to make.

[2003] EWCA Crim 175

A judge had exercised his discretion fairly under s.41 Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 by ruling as admissible certain evidence about sexual abuse on complainant children by persons other than their parents against whom criminal proceedings had been brought.

[2003] EWCA Crim 29

In a case where it was claimed that journalists had unfairly obtained taped conversations in a conspiracy to commit violent disorder at football matches, and where the content of the tapes had been agreed and the issue was whether the accused had been serious in their comments, there was no unfairness and a considerable public interest in allowing the tapes to be put before a jury. Sentences were reduced by six months to reflect an unreasonable delay in the appeal process.

[2002] EWCA Crim 2855

Where the prosecution case against a doctor comprised many similar allegations of indecent assault made by several of his former patients, the court was entitled to assume that the evidence of those witnesses was true before asking itself whether it would be an affront to common sense to explain the allegations on the basis of chance or coincidence. Where the defence alleged that the witnesses were mistaken or lying, it was permissible to take a cumulative approach to such evidence.

[2002] EWCA Crim 1501

In seeking an order under s.42(3) Drug Trafficking Act 1994 for the further detention of cash seized, the receipt by the justices of Form C in the schedule to the Magistrates’ Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Drug Trafficking Cash) Rules 1991 was not mandatory and in any event its receipt did not constitute a necessary part of the originating process so as to render the process irretrievably flawed if not received.