Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[4] ������ Counts 3 and 4 alleged sexual assault and common assault again in the complainant's home on 3 July 2013 when the applicant allegedly pulled her round and grabbed her and then threw a glass filled with water at her causing her nose to bleed. Count 5 was an allegation of assault in the applicant's flat on 21 August 2013 when he grabbed her, squeezed her two cheeks and threw her down on the sofa.
[6] ������ Counts 11 and 12 were allegations of false imprisonment and common assault on 21 October 2013 in the applicant's flat. The applicant locked the door and said the complainant was not getting out. When she was eventually able to make her way downstairs he grabbed her by the back of the neck pushed her up against the wall and stuck his knee between her legs.
[10] ���� Article 8 of the 2004 Order provides that in respect of Article 6(1)(d) the matters in issue between the defendant and the prosecution include �
�(a) ���� the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence;
(b) ����� the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant's case is untruthful in any respect.�
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.