R v Troop

The appeal in R v Troop concerned the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for breaking and entering a dwelling with intent in the night time and indecent assault. The appellant argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury in relation to the necessary intention to sexually assault the complainant at the time of entry. Additionally, the appellant contested the severity of the sentence, asserting it was manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether the trial judge had indeed misdirected the jury in a manner that would necessitate a new trial. The central issue was whether the jury's attention was diverted from the critical requirement that they be satisfied of the appellant's intent to sexually assault at the moment of entry. The court also examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, given the cumulative nature of the sentences.

In examining the summing up as a whole, the court found that the trial judge's directions, while perhaps not perfect, did not result in a misdirection that would warrant a new trial. The court held that the jury was adequately directed on the necessary intent, and thus, the conviction was upheld. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the cumulative imposition of the sentences was appropriate in the circumstances.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.