The following case precedent may be a useful starting point when considering grounds for an Appeal. You might also like to consider this information when instructing lawyers, where there are certain things they should do and essential evidence that must be gathered if any defence is to have a chance of success.

The system is rife with lawyers who cut corners to make a living from limited legal aid fees - and police officers who also cut corners in not securing a crime scene, coaching witnesses and even fabricating or destroying evidence of innocence.

DISCLOSURE:

Marks v Beyfus 1890 LR 25 QBD 494  (Lord Esher: If judge thinks disclosure is necessary or right to shew prisoners innocence, one public policy in conflict with another; that which says an innocent man is not to be condemned when can be proved must prevail) See R v Keane

R v Hennesey (Timothy) 1978 68 Cr App 419,426  (Judge’s duty to defendant, all relevant evidence to the defence to ensure Crown gets no advantage from neglect of duty on part of prosecution – prosecution duty to Court to ensure all relevant evidence of help to accused is led by them or made available.)

R v Leyland Justices Ex Parte Hawthorn 1979 Q..B. 283 (General duty of fair disclosure)

Lamy v Belgium  March 30 1989 Series A (No. 151) 11 EHRR 529  (denied access to prosecution file, could not therefore effectively challenge the statements or prosecution submissions based on them, court held violation of article 5(4), no equality at arms, denied the opportunity to challenge the reasons for his detention.

R v Phillipson 1989 (letter & photograph ought to have been disclosed by prosecution)

R v Lawson 90 Cr App R 107,114  (Definition of ‘material evidence’ tends to weaken prosecution case or strengthen defence case)

R v Sansom 1991 (documents in possession of prosecution ought to have been disclosed)

R v Maguire 1992 Q.B. 936, 957  (Disclosure)  R v Ward 1993 1 WLR 619  (Disclosure)

R v Keane 1994 1 WLR 746  (Lord Taylor: If disputed material may prove the defendant’s innocence or avoid a miscarriage of justice, the balance comes down resoundingly in favour of disclosing it) See Marks v Beyfus

R v H (minors) 1996 AC 563 (Disclosure – civil standard of proof in sex cases – more serious allegation, less likely to have occurred & stronger must be evidence, not ambush)

R v Derek A  2000 14 March No. 1998/07511/Y5 Crim App. (Non disclosure – claimant indulging in touching of other children’s genitals including playing with brother – goes to being able to describe sexual acts, providing alternative source for her knowledge.)

Rowe & Davis v 2000 UK 30 ECHR & Jasper & Fitt v UK 2000 ECHR (Medical v PII without submitting to trial judge, Art 6 requirements not met and resulting defect could not be cured by submitting material to court of appeal in the course of an appeal.)

R v Causley 2003 EWCA Crim 1840 para 86 & 90-93  (Disclosure evidence & doubt)

R v H&C 2004 2 AC 134 (Disclosure and Golden Rule test)

Edwards & Lewis v UK 2005 40 EHRR 25 (Grand Chamber) App. Nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98 (Disclosure and fundamental right to fair trial that criminal proceedings have to be adversarial, opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations and evidence adduced by the other party)

R v Kennedy Oct 9 2008 CA EWCA Crim 2817  (Unreported, initial duty disclosure)

McDonald v HM Advocate Times Nov 5 2008 (Medical history)

Jespers v Belgium 27 D.R. 61  (equality of arms principle imposes obligation to disclose material in their possession or to which they could gain access, which may assist the accused in exonerating himself, also relevant to credibility may also raise issue under Article 6 (3)(d))  See also: Foucher v France 25 EHRR 234  as to disclosure of prison psychiatric report prepared on co-defendant)

R v G and G 2009 9 Archbold News 2 CA.  (Diaries: What was so important to the defence was the fact that the diaries did not contain any reference to the alleged abuse.)

R v R.F. 2010 Crim LR 148 CA (Obligation of Crown to reasonable lines of inquiry, must take reasonable steps to obtain evidence. Whether this obligation has been discharged is for courts to decide on provision of full information to the court.)

McInnes v H.M. Advocate The Times February 11 2010 SC  (Duty of prosecutor to disclose: taking all circumstances of the trial into account, was there a real possibility that the jury would have arrived at a different verdict if the material had been available.)

PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY & RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL:

Bernard v Trinidad & Tobago 2007 2 Cr App R. 22 PC (Had trial been fair if irregularity was incorrect admission of evidence. In cases of procedural irregularity approach should be to weigh the seriousness of the effects, if minor, trial may still have been fair.)

PRESERVATION of EVIDENCE (see also Abuse of Process)

R v Mullen 1999 1 AC 42 HL  (Category 2 failure to preserve evidence for the defence)

R v Gajree [Sept 1994] CA Crim App (Preservation crime scene photos & carpet stains)

R v Beckford [1996] Crim App R94 101  (Abuse of process – evidence not preserved that should have been seized, exceptionally stayed trial.)

R (Ebrahim) v Feltham Magistrates Court; Mouat v DPP 2001 2 Cr App R 23 DC.  (Category one failure to preserve evidence, video of police chase necessary for defence that driver sped under duress of circumstances, not knowing it was a police car chasing him.)

NEGLIGENCE & RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL:

Boodram v Trinidad & Tobago 2002 1 Cr App R 12 PC  (Trial strategy fatally flawed, lack of preparation for trial.)

R v France (Andrew) 2009 EWCA Crim App 2909 (200903160/D4) (Trial barrister failed to call evidence of physical disability, which claimant could not have failed to notice [genital abnormality] not properly the subject of cross examination of the complainant, and counsel failed to ask defendant, nor could D be blamed for not mentioning where told to only answer questions put to him.)

R v Day 2003 EWCA 6 Archbold News 1 CA EWCA Crim 1060 (Trial irregularities)

*Thraker 2001 EWCA 1096 & Teeluck v Trinidad & Tobago 2005

R v Clinton 97 Cr App R. 320 CA  (Due process - failure of counsel to do a thing in defiance of, or without seeking further instruction when promptings of good reason pointed the other way.) Archbold 7-82

R v (Christopher) Irwin 1987 85 Cr App R 294  (where decision to call evidence [witnesses] was the client’s, the appellant’s counsel should have obtained from him clear preferably written instructions before deciding not to call alibi witnesses. When not called, he was convicted, when called aquitted.)

EXPERT or SPECIALIST EVIDENCE:

Daniels v Walker 2000 1 WLR 1382 (Own specialist, unjust not to allow defence to call)

R v Reed and Reed & R v Garmson, The Times Jan 8 2010 CA (where a disagreement identified, must go to attention judge as duty of the parties. Ordinarily necessary for judge to order joint statement setting out precisely what is disputed - agreement and disagreement – hence what science is to be used at trial and what disputed.)

R v Tricoglus 65 Cr App R 16 CA (Evidence wrongfully admitted or excluded evidence which combine to render a verdict unsafe. Archbold 2010 7-73 page 1138)

PSYCHOLOGY:

R v Dryden 1995 4 All EB 987  (Characteristics which the jury were entitled to take into account; obsessiveness [The Bill and wheelchairs], or complaints [cookery class and Laura Kim]which fell into the category of mental characteristics.)

DIRECTIONS & MISDIRECTION or MISCONDUCT by TRIAL JUDGE:

R v Badjan (Keith Kebba) 1996 50 Cr App R 141 (Paul Rose for appellant: The summing up was defective, in that the commissioner never referred to the defence of self-defence. It was his duty to do so whatever he may have himself thought of the weight of the defence. Edmund Davies J. In the course of his direction to the jury, the learned commissioner said nothing about the defence of self-defence which the appellant had raised. It was a defence which in light of the evidence might have been regarded as of tenuous worth, but it was a defence which the appellant was entitled to have left to the jury for their assessment. Where a cardinal line of defence is placed before the jury and that finds no reflection at any stage in the summing up, it is in general impossible, in the view of this court, to say that the proviso can properly be applied s as to say that the conviction is secure in those circumstances. Accordingly no alternative but to allow appeal and quash conviction)

R v (Alexander) Marashi 2001 EWCA Crim 2448 (Potter LJ Witness evidence never received any study or analysis in the course of summing up. [7. Judge failed entirely to martial the issues or detail the inconsistencies arising on the factual evidence given by eyewitnesses in the course of summing up] [7. did not sufficiently highlight the inconsistencies in evidence] [11. Unfortunately the evidence never received any study or analysis of the kind we have mentioned in the course of summing up] [13. the intervening…pages which referred to the evidence of the witnesses……regarded as a totally inadequate survey of the factual issues or any inconsistencies between the evidence from independent witnesses.] [13. The content of, or the issues raised by, the evidence was unfortunately not mentioned either in substance or at all.] There was not an accurate or substantial review of the main facts. [15.The fact that it omitted any detailed reference to the evidence and the conflicts raised thereby inevitably rendered it unfair to the defendant.] [17. …without reference to the main points in the evidence, neither the defendant not we can do better than speculate at the jury’s reasoning in relation to its final decision. We do not consider that is either adequate or fair that that should be so. Accordingly we allow the appeal and the conviction will be quashed.)

R v McGreevy 1973 57 Cr App R 424 @ 430 (It is not essential that the trial judge should make every point that can be made for the defence. If he were to do so and were also to follow each such point with the Crown’s rebutting argument, he would run the risk of breaking up the defence case in such a way as to destroy its effect…. ..the fundamental requirements are correct directions on point of law, an accurate review of the main facts and alleged facts and a general impression of fairness.)

R v Tibbs 2000 2 Cr App R309  (Directions adverse inferences from inconsistencies)

Michael v Queen The Times Nov 9 2009 PC  (instead of umpiring had effectively acted as second prosecutor, conclusion drawn on appeal that accused [litigant] not had fair trial – right to an impartial judge – when asking questions a judge can seek to clarify ambiguity but should not be seeking to promote the orderly elicitation of evidence, nor needlessly interrupting its flow)

R v Copsey and Copsey 2008 9 Archbold News 3 CA  (Defendant denied a fair trial and his conviction was rendered unsafe when the judge had interrupted his evidence on numerous occasions to ask questions (viz. 60 during examination in chief and 50 during cross examination), where the judge had given the clear impression to the jury that he doubted the defendant’s case and had taken the role on the role of cross examination in a way more suitable for prosecuting counsel that for a judge)

TRIAL by MEDIA:

R v Malik 52 Cr App R. 140 CA   &  R v Savundra 52 Cr App R. 637 CA  (On the possibility of a conviction being quashed because of pre trial publicity)

R v McCann 1992 Cr App R. 239 CA  &  R v Taylor and Taylor 1998 Cr App R. 361 CA (Convictions were quashed where there had been adverse publicity during the trials, in Taylor: consisting of; extensive, sensational, inaccurate and misleading press coverage – this was only one ground for quashing, but principle reason for not ordering retrial.)

R v Wood 1996 1 Cr App R 207 CA (One of grounds for quashing conviction)

Boodram v Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago 1996 AC 842   (Complaint about adverse publicity is for the trial court and mechanisms which enable the trial court to protect the fairness of the trial from invasion by outside influences.)

R v Barnett [2008] 1 Cr App R. (s) 61 CA  (sentence of 30 months cut to 18 months due to public humiliation and anxiety exposure had caused)

“Contempt of Court Act 1981.”

ABUSE OF PROCESS: (see also Preservation of Evidence)

Derby Crown Court, ex parte Brooks 1985 80 Cr App R. 164,168,169  (Power to stop prosecution due to manipulation or misuse of court process which may prejudice defendant on balance of probability)

R v O 2007 EWCA Crim 3483  (H.M. Customs denied D his own evidence after proper applications for disclosure, the case was halted as an abuse of process. In this case “O” was simply asking for his own business documents back, to be able to defend himself)

BAD FAITH:

Connely v D.P.P. 1964 48 Cr App R 184; [1964] AC 1254  (Courts inescapable duty to secure fair treatment for defendants)

R v Walsh 91 Cr App R. 161  (Bad faith may make substantial & significant that which might otherwise not be so)

R v Grant 2005 2 Cr App R 28  (as to unlawful conduct and capability to infect the proceedings – bad faith.)

COACHING:

R v Momodou 2005 EWCA Crim 177 1 WLR 3442  (Coaching of witnesses)

R v Arif  (Rehearsal of evidence before trial by potential witnesses, and whether evidence should be excluded or case withdrawn.)

AMBUSH:

Mattocia v Italy 2003 36 EHRR 4  (As to late changes in the way the crown put their case)

HEARSAY:

Luca v Italy 2003 36 EHRR 46 [2001] Crim L.R. 747  & Al-Khawaja v UK; Tahery v UK Jan 2009 ECtHR Unreported (Evidence untested by cross examination of absent witness could not be admitted consistently with Article 6 (1) and (3) (d))

BAD CHARACTER and INCOMPETENCE of COUNSEL:

Thompson v the Queen 1998 AC 811, following R v Aziz 1996 AC 41 and R v Vye 193 471.  (When a Defendant has no convictions of any relevance or significance, he is entitled to the benefit of a good character direction from the judge when summing up to the jury, tailored to fit the circumstances of the case)

R v Fulcher 1995 2 Cr App R 251, 260.  (Good character direction should be matter o course not discretion, as capable of having some effect in every case)

R v Kamar The Times, 14 May 1999.  (If omitted it will rarely be possible for an appellate court to say that the giving of a good character direction could not have affected the outcome of the trial)

Berry v The Queen 1992 2 AC 364, 381; Barrow v The State 1998 AC 846, 850; Sealey v The State 2002 61 WIR 491 para 34.  (Where credibility in an issue, a good character direction is always relevant)

Barrow v The State 1998 AC 846, 852, following Thompson v The Queen 1998 AC 811, 844.  (The defendant’s good character must be distinctly raised, by direct evidence from him or given on his behalf or by eliciting in cross examination of prosecution witnesses, it is a necessary job of defending counsel’s duty to his client to ensure that such evidence is adduced )

Thompson v The Queen, at p 844.  (The duty of raising the issue is to be discharged by the defence, not by the judge, and if it is not raised by the defence the judge is under no duty to raise it himself. Hence, the duty rests with defence counsel to his client.)

Thomas v Comissioners of Police of the Metropolis CA 1996 (WLR 19 Dec) BOC (On admitting spent convictions, negative answer would be required where previous convictions so obviously irrelevant to issues in court and to moral standing of witness, that reasonable jury could not properly take into account when deciding believability)

R v Kavanagh 2005 Basildon C.C. Judge Christopher Mitchell  T20037187 (Sentencing unreported – “I put entirely out of my mind any previous convictions prior to 1984 … and take no notice at all of the conviction in the mid nineties.”)

R v Hanson 2005 EWCA Crim 824  (dishonesty is not same as untruhfulness)

Teeluck v State of Trinidad and Tobago; John v Same 2005 UKPC 14  (where a defendant had no convictions of any relevance or significance he was entitled to the benefit of a good character direction from the judge when summing up to the jury as a matter of course; but it was the duty of defence counsel to raise such issue not for the judge who is under no duty to raise it himself, hence incompetence of counsel a major issue.)

R v Tirnaveanu 2007 EWCA Crim 1239 para 33 after R v Vye 1993 3 ALL ER 241  (Bad character direction as to relevance if admitted)

FRESH EVIDENCE:

Bain v The Queen 71 J.C.L. 34 PC 2007 UKPC 33  (Duty of appellate courts to rectify convictions which may be unjust considering fresh evidence on which a jury might reasonably have declined to convict)

Stafford and Luvaglio v DPP 1974 AC 878  (Appellate court must not take the decision making process away from the jury. If there is new evidence that might reasonably have affected the decision of a jury, the appellate court must find the conviction unsafe and if appropriate refer the matter back to a jury for a decision.)

R v Jshtiaq Ahmed 2002 EWCA Crim 2781 C.A.  (To ask what effect new evidence may have had on a jury is meaningless.)

R v Colin Cooper 2010 EWCA Crim 79  Thurs 6^th May 2010 &

R v PF (Paul Flay) 2009 EWCA Crim 1086  13 May 2009 (In both cases convictions were quashed where they’d been convicted on outdated guidance from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Revised guidance was published in March of 2008, telling that hymenal notches and other features previously thought to be supportive of sexual abuse, were to be considered normal.)

LURKING DOUBT and CORROBORATION:

R v Crown Court Knightbridge (Goontilleke) 1985 (Disclosure forensic science ongoing)

R v Maxie Angus Anderson Ensor 1989 Cr App R 139  (A lie [about a whip] is capable of amounting to corroboration. Case quashed because no direction was given as to uncorroborated testimony.)

R v Bolton Justices 1991 (Unfairness of conviction obtained by conduct analogous fraud)

If the Court has a lurking doubt that an injustice may have occurred as a result of incompetent advocacy, then it should quash the conviction, after: R v Irwin 85 Cr App R. 294 CA; R v Gautam 1988 Cim L.R. 109 and R v Ensor 89 Cr App R. 139. (Ref. Archbold 7-82).

WRONGFUL DENIAL of REPRESENTATION & DISCOURTESY:

Jones V University of Warwick 2003 1 WLR 954; [2003] 3 All ER 760  (Lord Woolf – case management orders and HRA 1998 – overriding objective of the CPR to deal with cases justly)

Kaufman v Belgium 50 DR 98 (@115)  (Reasonable opportunity of presenting case under conditions not placed at disadvantage to his opponent)

R v Ulkay 2008 1 Cr App R 24 CA  (Bar Code of Conduct and duty to soldier on)

R v Shatwell 2002 2 Cr App R 24 CA  (Defendant should be properly and adequately put before court represented by suitably qualified advocate)

R v Al-Zubeidi 1999 Crim LR 906 2 CA  (Counsel withdrawing due embarrassment, judge wrongly refusing adjournment to permit instruction of fresh counsel - case complex, ought to permit fresh counsel to be instructed, if defence was to have any prospect of carrying weight with jury)

R v Stowell 2006 Crim L.R. 760 CA  (fundamental question is whether a fair trial was possible and in fact took place)

R v Mitchell (John) 1999 1 WLR 1679 PC  (wrongful denial of legal representation)

R v Davies (C.S.) The Times Feb 11 1987  (Where the defendant is wrongly denied legal representation this may result in a conviction being quashed.)

R v Andrews 27 Cr App R 12 CCA   (Unrepresented defendant not informed of rights)

R v Harris 1985 Crim L.R. 244 CA (where D is wrongly denied legal representation, may result in conviction being quashed – counsel & solicitors withdrew, legal aid not revoked, adjournment to seek fresh representation refused)

R v Kirk 76 Cr App R. 194 CA  (legal aid discharged otherwise than in prescribed manner)

APPEARANCE of FAIRNESS & PREJUDICE:

R v Cordingly 2008 Crim L.R. 299 CA (conviction quashed considering state of mind of the defendant, judge had withdrawn bail, refused change of clothing, stating that case had wasted so much court time, D then broke down in witness box when asked to give evidence, which was brutal treatment. Case rests not solely on strength of evidence, but upon observance of due process. Every defendant is entitled to be tried fairly and with due regard to presumption of innocence. In this case not by reason of judges conduct. Archbold *7-81 2010)

Patanki and Dunshirn v Austria 1963 6 Y.B. 714  (Positive obligation to afford adequate facilities for the preparation of a defence and refrain from interference, state should adopt appropriate measures to place defendant in a position of parity with prosecution)

Artico v Italy 3 EHRR 1 para 35  and S v UK 2002 35 EHRR 31  (To expect the accused to prove that an inadequate defence had caused actual prejudice would be asking for “the impossible.”)

Al-Khawaja v UK; Tahery v UK (unreported) January 20 2009 ECtHR  (The general right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6(1) requires that the court should ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole were fair – Archbold *16-58 supplement No. 2 March 2009)

SENTENCING:

Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 -  effect to schedule 6 which makes provision for crediting periods of bail subject to conditions, to count in the calculation of the time to be served under custodial sentences imposed before 4 April 2005. See new section 240A of Criminal Justice Act 2003

R v Nightingale (Alan) 16 Jan 2010 (Sir Christopher Holland) Convicted Maidstone C.C.

(unreported) 8 ½ to 6 ½ years - 6 month reduction for 24 months bail.

R v Alexander 1997 2 Cr App R. (S) 74 CA  (where D had shown great courage in apprehending robbers and witness against them, he is entitled to particular credit for conduct)  see also:  R v Wenman 2005 2 Cr App R. (S) 3 CA

R v Barnett 2008 1 Cr App R. (S) 61 CA  (30 months reduced to 18 due to the humiliation and anxiety the public exposure sting operation had caused) Arch *5-94

SOPO & LICENCE - CONDITIONS & PROPORTIONALITY:

R v Taplin (probation required T to undertake course though T maintained innocence, was held to be inappropriate and breach of T’s rights – unlawful detention Art 5(4).)

R v Zulfikar & R v Oarton

ECHR 5(4) and 6(1) + 13 & 17 EFFECTIVE & FILTRATION APPEALS:

Singh v UK Feb 21 1996 22 EHRR 1  (Requires an oral hearing with adversarial proceedings involving legal representation – hence single judge refusal and subsequent renewal to three judges without representation breach of Article 5(4))

Megyeri v Germany May 1992 (No. 237a) 15 EHRR 584 @ 27  (An exclusively written procedure does not satisfy the requirements of Article 5(4) even where documents prepared with the assistance of a lawyer, and must be decided speedily. Hence, SJ refusal and deprivation of representation is potential breach convention.)

Bouamar v Belgium Feb 1988 (No. 129) 1 EHRR 1  (Article 5(4) single judge system provides no right to be heard (habeas corpus) or represented by a lawyer, breaches human rights)

Sanchez-Reisse v Switzerland Oct 1986 (No.107) EHRR 71

Delcourt v Belguim 1 EHRR 355 para 25 (Convention regards appeal proceedings as extension of trial process)

R v Pendleton 2002 1 WLR 72 HL 66   (Court of Appeal are obliged to consider whether there is evidence which might have swayed a jury – rather than decide for themselves whether it would have. Hence, if there is evidence that might have influenced the jury the court [incl singe judge] should refer to appeal court rather than making it’s own judgement.)

R (Nicholas Farnell) v CCRC 2003 EWHC 835 Admin 2003 WL 1822993  (Refusal to refer case to Ct Appeal quashed when CCRC declined to consider fresh evidence of psychiatrists as relevant to provocation and direction of trial judge defective. Test to be applied real possibility and should not decide for jury, it’s the jury’s function.)

R v CCRC (ep parte Pearson) 2000 1 Cr App R 141 DC  and R (Hunt) v CCRC 2001 2 Cr App R 76 DC  (Real possibility test is imprecise Lord Bingham CJ’s: “more than an outside chance, ……. but less than a racing certainty” “The real test must be to ask whether the reasons given by the Commission betray, to a significant extent, any of the defects which entitle a court of review to interfere” [169G])

R v Oates 2002 1 WLR 2833 CA  (It was sufficient for the purposes of Article 6(3)(c) that the defendant was provided with publicly funded representation at trial which extended to the provision of advice on appeal and the drafting of grounds for consideration by the single judge under section 31 of the CAA 1968.)

ECHR ARTICLE 3 INHUMAN TREATMENT:

McQuiston and Others v UK DR 46/182  (Negligent supervision falls to be considered as inhuman or degrading treatment)

X v Italy DR 27/100  (where medical disorders require special action by a state to protect a prisoners wellbeing)

Hurtado v Switzerland 1994  (failure to refer a request to a specialist)

Peers v Greece 2001 33 EHRR 51  (

Kudla v Poland 2002 35 EHRR  (

Price v UK 2002 34 EHRR  (

European Prison Rules 1987

Section 64             (aggravating suffering)

Section 65(b)             (minimise detrimental effects of imprisonment)

Section 67(1) (allocation …. where each can receive appropriate treatment)

Section 70(1) (steps to safeguard the rights and other social benefits of prisoners)

CIVIL OBLIGATIONS & DUTY OF CARE:

Golder v UK 1974 (No. 18) 1 EHRR 524 para 35  (Defendant’s and Right to invoke legal procedures when faced with loss of rights or an imposition of obligations: hence plaintiff’s right TM trade mark case and Libraries Act publications)

Immobilaire v Italy 1999 unreported, citing Hornsby v Greece 1997 510, 24 EHRR 250 para 40

R v Bowden 1995 1 WLR 98  ( Misfeasance [misconduct] in public office, duty to protect a member of the public – persons in their care)

PSYCHOLOGICAL REFERENCES:

Low self esteem, depression & self harm [Finkelhor D. & Browne. A. (1986), Impact of child sexual abuse: review of the research Psychological Bulletin, 92,66-77.] Low self esteem, anxiety, depression to post traumatic stress and self harming behaviours. (Making a false allegation boosts self esteem and importance, especially where attention seeking involved)

[Kendler K.S., M.D., et al, Medical College of Virginia Commonwealth University, Archives of General Psychiatry 2000;57:953-958] Self harming may include substance abuse and eating disorders as well as cutting and suicide attempts.

[Neumark-Sztainer D, et al, University of Minneapolis, International Journal of Eating Disorders 2000;28:249-258]

[Tsai and Wagner. 1978 Therapy Groups for women sexually molested as children. Archives of Seual Behaviour 1, 417-427] problems with interpersonal relationships and sexual functioning.

[Wondelich S.A. et al, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences in Fargo, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2000;391277-1283] Self harming and suicide. Eating disorders.

[Brown L.K. et al, American Journal of Psychiatry 2000;157:1413-1415] Abused girls more likely to become involved in harmful sexual behaviour, resulting in STD’s and HIV.

THE MAGNA CARTA 1215

The basis of the English constitution, common law and protection of ordinary citizens against abuses by the Monarch and his agents. There must be respect for the fundamental principles in this document.

Section 38: “In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.”  (British citizens should not be convicted or taken to trial on the basis of an unsupported statement. The arrest of a person on the basis of an unsupported statement …..

Section 39: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Section 40: “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

Section 52: “To any man whom we deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these…”