Our offices are open as usual over the Easter break

R v Coates

311 words (1 pages) Case Summary in Cases

07/03/18 Cases Reference this

Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.

R v Coates [2008] 1 Cr App R 52

Rape – Consent – Intoxication – Oral Statements – Inconsistent Evidence – Admissibility of Evidence – s119 Criminal Justice Act 2003s120(4)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003

Facts

The defendant was a senior naval rating at the time of the incident and the complainant was a naval medical assistant, both working aboard a ship. They worked closely as professionals, but there was no indication of any other relationship. There was a barbeque on the quarterdeck; both the defendant and complainant had consumed alcohol. There was a brief exchange between them, where the complainant gave the defendant a kiss on the cheek. They later had sexual intercourse. The complainant could not recall the events or making statements, but these statements taken afterwards were used as evidence for alleged rape. He admitted intercourse took place, but said it was consensual. Convicted of rape.

Issues

The conviction was appealed and the defendant wished to address the admissibility of one of the statements the complainant gave after the incident, as it was inconsistent with her testimony. This was under s119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Thus, the defendant argued that it was not admissible under s120(4)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Held

The conviction was quashed and the Court said it was unsafe. It was concluded that the first statement of the complainant ‘should not have been treated as admissible evidence sufficient to form the basis for a conviction for rape disavowed by the complainant herself’ [42].  It was viewed as unreliable. The Court also believed that the directions given to the Board were not as ‘full and complete’ [44] as they should have been regarding the evidence and testimony.

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.

www.gazon.net.ua

узнать больше buysteroids.in.ua

Current Offers