R v C

In this case, the appellant appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against sentence was allowed, and the sentence was varied. The conviction related to offences of indecent assault and attempted buggery. The appeal against conviction centred on the alleged impropriety of a question asked by the Crown Prosecutor during cross-examination, which was held to be an error that could not be corrected by the trial judge’s direction. The appellant also argued that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, but the court found no necessary inconsistencies in the evidence when considering the circumstances of the alleged offences.

The court considered the nature of the alleged impropriety, whether it could be remedied by a direction from the trial judge, and whether the evidence was prejudicial to the appellant. It concluded that the impropriety was not curable and that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value. However, the court also held that the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice because the circumstances of the alleged offences were different. The court further considered the evidence of the co-offender, who provided a similar account of the events, and found that the jury was entitled to reject this evidence.

The court also examined the evidence of a complaint of a sexual act made by the victim to a police officer. The court held that the evidence was admissible and relevant to the charges of indecent assault and attempted buggery. The court further held that the evidence was not inadmissible on the ground that it was prejudicial, as the prejudicial effect was not outweighed by its probative value. The court also held that the evidence was not inadmissible on the ground that it was obtained in breach of the appellant’s right to a fair hearing, as the appellant had not made a complaint at the first reasonable opportunity.

The appeal against sentence was allowed on the ground of disparity between the appellant’s sentence and that of his co-offender, who was convicted of more counts but sentenced to a lesser term of imprisonment. The court held that the appellant’s sentence of three years imprisonment was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the co-offender’s sentence of two years imprisonment. The court varied the sentence to two years imprisonment and deemed the pre-sentence custody to be time already served under that sentence.