R v Taiters

In the matter of R v Taiters, the appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences and sentenced to a total of ten years imprisonment. The appeal was against both the conviction and the sentence. The court was required to consider whether the summing up by the trial judge was fair and balanced, whether there was any expression of the judge’s opinion that could have prejudiced the jury, whether the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the appellant was prejudicial, and if any evidence was improperly excluded or included. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the sentencing judge adequately considered the relevant statutory provisions when imposing the sentence.

The court examined the summing up and found that while the trial judge spent more time discussing the complainant's evidence, this did not necessarily render the summing up unfair or unbalanced. The judge had previously directed the jury that they were not bound by the judge’s opinions on the facts, mitigating any potential prejudice. The court also determined that the prosecutor’s cross-examination did not reach the level of being inflammatory or prejudicial. Regarding the exclusion of evidence, the court found no error in the trial judge's decisions. However, concerning the sentence, the court found that the sentencing judge had failed to consider the effect of Part 9A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, which necessitated a review of the sentence.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed. However, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The sentences were set aside, and new sentences were imposed: eight years imprisonment for rape, four years for indecent assault with a circumstance of aggravation, and three years for each of the other offences of indecent assault. The court also declared that 419 days already served by the appellant should count towards the new sentences.