R V L.P.B [1990] 91 CR. APP
FACTS:-
The Defendant had been committed by magistrates for trial at the Central Criminal Court, on a specimen charge of indecent assault between 1972 and 1989. There were four other charges alleging rape, which were alleged to have happened between December 1980 and December 1984. Finally there was a charge of actual bodily harm between December 1983 and December 1984.
The Defendant applied for a stay of the proceedings on the grounds that there had been a delay before the facts were reported by the victim. This now made a trial unfair.
HELD:-
Justice Judge said that many similar applications were being made in the Central Criminal Court. He referred to a number of cases on this point:-
Judge J said that the delay here was the result of reticence by the alleged victim in reporting the allegation. Such delay was not uncommon and was wholly understandable. Delay was directly connected with and might well be a consequence of the offences themselves and the relationships between the victim and the alleged offender and indeed other relationships within the family. This was a commonplace feature in cases of this kind. Furthermore the victim would be cross examined about the delay and the jury would be required to evaluate her explanations.
Judge J said that he was satisfied that a fair trial would take place adn that after a fair trial, a proper verdict would be reached by the jury. It was difficult to envisage any circumstances in which it would be right for the court to conclude, in advance of hearing the complainant’s evidence at trial, that a trial based on a delayed complaint by an alleged victim of sexual abuse within the home would amount to an abuse of the Court’s process.
FACTS:-
The Defendant had been committed by magistrates for trial at the Central Criminal Court, on a specimen charge of indecent assault between 1972 and 1989. There were four other charges alleging rape, which were alleged to have happened between December 1980 and December 1984. Finally there was a charge of actual bodily harm between December 1983 and December 1984.
The Defendant applied for a stay of the proceedings on the grounds that there had been a delay before the facts were reported by the victim. This now made a trial unfair.
HELD:-
Justice Judge said that many similar applications were being made in the Central Criminal Court. He referred to a number of cases on this point:-
- Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529
- DPP v Humphrys (1976) 63 Cr. App. R 95 [1977] AC 1
- Derby Crown Court, Ex parte Brooks (1985) 80 Cr. App R 164
- Bell v DPP of Jamaica [1985] 1 AC 937
- Colwyn Justices Ex parte DPP unreported March 7 1988, Divisional Court
- Sunderland Magistrates’ Court, Ex parte Z [1989] Crim LR 56
- Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Cherry, Divisional Court, 19 December 1989
- Jago v District Council of New South Wales (1989) 63 ALJR 640
Judge J said that the delay here was the result of reticence by the alleged victim in reporting the allegation. Such delay was not uncommon and was wholly understandable. Delay was directly connected with and might well be a consequence of the offences themselves and the relationships between the victim and the alleged offender and indeed other relationships within the family. This was a commonplace feature in cases of this kind. Furthermore the victim would be cross examined about the delay and the jury would be required to evaluate her explanations.
Judge J said that he was satisfied that a fair trial would take place adn that after a fair trial, a proper verdict would be reached by the jury. It was difficult to envisage any circumstances in which it would be right for the court to conclude, in advance of hearing the complainant’s evidence at trial, that a trial based on a delayed complaint by an alleged victim of sexual abuse within the home would amount to an abuse of the Court’s process.