The conviction of a vulnerable adult with a severe learning disability for the offence of sexual activity by a care worker with a person with a mental disability was unsafe, and was accordingly quashed, where inadequate consideration had been given to his learning disability in the course of the trial. Fresh psychological evidence demonstrated that he would have had difficulty in dealing with leading questions asked in cross-examination, and that might have left the jury with a false impression.
Applications which sought to continue a claim for judicial review of the indeterminate licence regime in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 s.31A were a “criminal cause or matter” within the meaning of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.18 and s.151, and the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) had no jurisdiction to entertain them.
The claimants, whose retrial on a charge of conspiracy to murder had collapsed owing to a failing in the disclosure process, had not made out their challenge to the Attorney General’s decision not to carry out a review of their case. Decisions of the Attorney General were even less susceptible to challenge than those of prosecutors.
The notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for those convicted of certain sexual offences applied by operation of the law, and did not require any order or court ruling. Accordingly, they could not form the subject of an appeal before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Similarly, certificates issued under s.92 of the Act which recorded the fact of such a conviction were not part of the sentence and could not be appealed. They could, however, be challenged by judicial review if wrongly issued.
There was no material difference between English law and the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence regarding the doctrine of entrapment such as to cast any doubt on Attorney General’s Reference (No.3 of 2000)  UKHL 53 complying with ECHR art.6.