Failure to Emphasise Defence Difficulties Produced by Delay Rendered Conviction Unsafe
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300533 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
ground for reasonable expectations based on any earlier information
given to her.
Lord Woolf MR added afootnote in the case of a consideration based,
not
on the requirements of retribution
and
deterrence,
but
on
the
prisoner's 'progress' while in prison. In such a case, the Parole Board
might have acontribution to make to the Home Secretary's decision.
That
meant
that, although the Home Secretary is
under
no obligation to
refer a case such as the present one to the Parole Board, 'it would be
wrong for the Home Secretary
not
to be prepared to consider exercising
his discretion to refer
the
case to the Parole Board
upon
that issue'. Here,
indeed, the Home Secretary had already taken that step,
but
the
Board
had
recommended no more
than
the
transfer of
the
prisoner to
an
open
prison.
Professor
l.A.
Coutts
Failure to Emphasise Defence Difficulties Produced
by
Delay Rendered Conviction Unsafe
R v
Kenneth
Patrick
Young
(unreported, 30 April 1999, No. 981l943/Y5)
The appellant was convicted of five counts of indecent assault on a
female, one count of gross indecency
with
a child, two counts of
attempted rape
and
eight counts of wilfully assaulting a child
under
14
years of age. Verdicts of
not
guilty were recorded on one count of gross
indecency with a child, one of attempted rape,
one
count of indecent
assault on a female,
and
one
of indecent assault on a male. Leave to
appeal was given on two grounds. The prosecution case was that from
1972 until 1978 the appellant had physically
and
sexually abused his
daughter L
and
also physically abused his sons K,
Sand
A. The defend-
ant
maintained that all the allegations were false
and
he
put
forward
various reasons for the children to lie. L had made acomplaint in 1988
and
the
appellant
had
been interviewed. No charges were brought at
that time. The defendant contended that there was particular prejudice
having regard to the fact that as between 1988
and
the date of
the
trial
there was a serious risk that records of the Social Services
and
several
doctors involved in the case had been mislaid. There was evidence that
the records of
one
of the schools had been mislaid during that period.
The appellant complained that the judge's direction to the
jury
was
inadequate, in particular by failing to stamp the court's
own
imprimatur
in the problems of delay caused to a defendant. The second ground
contended that the evidence of sexual abuse on a
number
of counts was
not
supportive of the prosecution case of physical abuse on a
number
of
other
counts and vice versa.
HELD,
ALLOWING
THE
APPEAL:
1. The judge's summing-up did not emphasise the difficulties from the
appellant's point of view,
and
if anything watered
down
his difficulties
456
To continue reading
Request your trial