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.
[2] The point taken by the appellant's solicitor advocate in this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence of the incidents occurring within the latitude selected by the Crown in each charge.
[3] We deal with charge 9 first. NK gave evidence that the incident occurred when she was aged between 12 and 14, which she subsequently clarified as when she was aged 13. When her police statement was put to her with the date of the incident being February 2008, she responded "if the statement said February, I would agree". In our opinion it was open to the jury to find that the incident had occurred within the period of the libel.
[5] In these circumstances, we are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before the jury entitling them to conclude that in each charge the incident occurred within the period of the libel. In the result therefore, the appeal is refused.
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.