![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> English and Welsh Courts - Miscellaneous >> Beards & Anor, R v [2016] EW Misc B14 (CC) (23 May 2016) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2016/B14.html Cite as: [2016] EW Misc B14 (CC) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
![]() |
B e f o r
e :
____________________
![]() | ||
-![]() | ||
(1) JULIE ![]() | ||
(2) STEVEN ![]() |
____________________
Mr Jo Sidhu QC & Mr Harbinder Singh Lally appeared for the First Defendant
Mr Douglas Day QC & Mr David Houldcroft appeared for the Second Defendant
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Green :
A. The issue
B. The position of the Defendant: Measures of adjustment taken in the course of the trial
C. Main issues in dispute between Prosecution and Defence
D. Summary of Contents of Report
E. The test of admissibility
F. Is the intermediary an expert?
G. Are these issues within the normal competence of the jury?
H. What sorts of issues might the expert evidence be relevant
to?
"33. Thirdly, we have noted the tendency of the appellant, during his evidence before theReading
jury, to pick arguments with the prosecutor over comparatively trivial detail, while failing, unless
re-directed,
to confront the underlying and critical question (paragraph 21 above). In our opinion, the expert evidence would have been of
value
to the jury in determining whether, on the one hand, the appellant was evading the question or, on the other, that he was, as a
result
of his unusual traits,
reluctant
to be deflected from his pre-occupation with matters of detail. We have noted also (at paragraph 24) the questionable explanation given by the appellant for his internet search. Both in assessing the content of his evidence and the manner in which it was delivered, it seems to us that the expert evidence would have been informative. We have given full consideration to Mr Price's argument that during the Aylesbury trial the appellant demonstrated himself to be a calculating witness, quite capable of trimming his evidence to suit the case then being presented to the jury. However, even if Mr Price is
right,
and we are not sure that he is, we cannot conclude that his criticisms of the appellant's evidence establish that he was undoubtedly lying to the
Reading
jury about the lack of sexual motivation for his actions towards the complainants SF and ZB."
I. The form in which the evidence is to be tendered.
J. Inclusion in the Jury Bundle
K. Fairness
L. Conclusion