DJB v R R v DJB

The case involved DJB, who was convicted of administering a drug with intent and engaging in sexual intercourse without consent with a 14-year-old victim. DJB appealed against his conviction, and the Crown appealed against the sentence. The legal issues before the court included whether the trial was a nullity due to an amendment to the original indictment, whether the directions to the jury caused confusion between DJB's conduct and that of his son, whether the jury was misdirected on the issue of intoxication, and whether the trial judge unreasonably restrained DJB's cross-examination rights. Additionally, the court considered whether the Crown's appeal regarding the accumulation of sentences was valid.

The court found that the amendment to the indictment did not render the trial a nullity, as the amendment was not material and did not prejudice DJB's case. The court also determined that the jury directions did not cause confusion between DJB's conduct and that of his son, as the directions were clear and appropriately tailored to the evidence presented. Furthermore, the court held that the jury was not misdirected on the issue of intoxication, as the trial judge had provided appropriate directions on the matter. The court found that the trial judge did not unreasonably restrain DJB's cross-examination rights, as the restrictions were justified and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Regarding the Crown's appeal, the court found that the offences involved distinct acts of criminality, and thus the sentences should not have been accumulated. Consequently, the Crown's appeal against the sentence was allowed.

DJB's conviction was upheld, but the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, rather than cumulatively. The Crown's appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. No orders were made in relation to the other issues raised by DJB's appeal.