R v Miah and Uddin, CA, 22 May 2006. – Appeal against conviction. - Admissibility of the complainant's previous sexual history under s.41(3)(a) of the Youth and Criminal Justice Act 1999. Held that once it was accepted that the evidence in relation to belief was admissible, the identification of the source of the information on which the appellants based their belief was relevant evidence as to whether they had that belief. It was therefore admissible. However, what was excluded was the identification of a named individual, as the source of their belief. As to sexual assault, the evidence lay in the complainant’s and appellant’s accounts. The mistaken exclusion of the evidence in relation to the identification of the source of their belief in consent did not affect the safety of the convictions for indecent assault. The conviction was safe. (Peter Dahlsen).

R v Osman [2007] EWCA Crim 39 – The question of whether to make a recommendation for deportation was a question of discretion for the Judge. It was appropriate to make a recommendation in a s2 case and the Court can take account of the fact that a recommendation makes no difference to a defendant’s asylum claim. (Dan Bunting)

R v Dyer [2007] EWCA Crim 90 – Appeal against sentence of theft (by breach of trust) of Class A drugs by nurse working in a hospital. There are no reported cases concerning this situation. It was held that the Clark guidelines did not apply and this sort of offending must attract an immediate custodial sentence. Sentence reduced from 15 months to 9 months in light of mitigation. (Dan Bunting)