Queen v X
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Kerr LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] NICA 1 |
| Date | 27 January 2006 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2006 |
1
Neutral Citation no [2006] NICA 1 Ref:
KERF5476
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
27.01.2006
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_________
THE QUEEN
-v-
X
________
Before Kerr LCJ, Higgins J, Weir J
________
KERR LCJ
Introduction
[1] This is an application by X for leave to appeal against his conviction of
three offences of indecent assault and two offences of rape. The applicant was
convicted after a trial before Her Honour Judge Kennedy and a jury at
Ballymena Crown Court on 30 January 2004.
[2] A number of different grounds of appeal have been advanced on
behalf of the applicant. Mr Ferriss QC, who appeared for him on trial and
before this court, helpfully grouped them into four main categories. The first
of these involved two related submissions that the verdicts were against the
weight of the evidence and that the learned trial judge should have
withdrawn the case from the jury. The second category of arguments dealt
with the avowed inconsistency of certain verdicts of the jury. The third
category concerned the alleged failure of the learned trial judge to give a
sufficiently clear warning to the jury about the need for caution in their
approach to evidence of some of the witnesses; and the final category related
to what was described as “the danger that the jury felt pressurised” by
remarks made by the judge after an exchange with the foreman of the jury
about the prospect of the jury reaching a unanimous verdict.
To continue reading
Request your trial
11 cases
-
Queen v CK
...guilt on the indecent assault charge when the jury has been unable to agree on the associated charges of gross indecency. [30] In R v X [2006] NICA 1 the question of inconsistent verdicts was considered. This court referred to the judgment of Buxton LJ in R v G [1998] Crim LR 483 in which h......
-
Gregory August v The Queen
...124R v Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Pearson [1999] 3 All ER 498. 125R v Pollock [2004] NICA 34. 126 Wilson (Dennis Francis) [2006] NICA 1 127 [1999] 3 All ER 498 . 128 Ibid, 503. 129 Ibid (emphasis added). 130 [2001] UKHL 66 at [17]. 131 [2012] EWCA Crim 2241 (emphasis added)......
-
Deon Antonio Watson v R
...30 and 31 of Scavella the following appears: “30 We share the learned Chief Justice Kerr's observations in the case of The Queen v. X [2006] NICA 1; paragraphs [29] – [30], that it was perfectly possible for the jury to choose to accept, reject or be uncertain about the evidence of witnesse......
-
Rauel Pierre v R
...and defence's case in relation thereto. 30. We share the learned Chief Justice Kerr's observations in the case of The Queen v. X [2006] NICA 1; paragraphs [29] —[30], that it was perfectly possible for the jury to choose to accept, reject or be uncertain about the evidence of witnesses on s......
Request a trial to view additional results