An appeal was allowed because of inconsistencies between the sole uncorroborated witness's statements and her testimony.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Lane LCJ, McCowan J, Henry J)
Leave a Comment
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Next post: R V STUART & ANOR (1989)
Previous post: R V NORRIS (1989)
Timely webcasts, analysis, updates and presentations about criminal law, practice and procedure. This channel allows listeners to learn about cutting-edge issues from leading practitioners and other professionals involved in criminal litigation.
Search the Archives
View Content by Category