major.json

[('"They are (1) that the appellant\'s legal advisors failed to advise her correctly on matters that went to the heart of her plea because (2) the elements of the offence were not made out and the appellant could not have been convicted with the result that (3) the appellant\'s plea was equivocal.", \' If, on any version of the facts, the elements of the offence were not made out, this conviction would undeniably be unsafe and would fall to be quashed even though the appellant had pleaded guilty: see R v McReady and Hurd [1978] 1 WLR 1376', {'entities': [(500, 538, 'Case')]}), (' Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ("the Act") provides:\\\', \\\'"(1) A person (A) commits an offence if –\\\', \\\'(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina … of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,\\\', \\\'(b) the penetration is sexual,\\\', \\\'(c) (B) does not consent to the penetration, and\\\', \\\'(d) (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.\', " \'(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.", " \'This last provision has been considered in a number of decisions (in particular, R v Jheeta [2007] 2 Cr App R 34, R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527 and R v B [2013] EWCA Crim 823).", \' In R v EB [2006] EWCA Crim 2945, [2007] 1 WLR 1567, this court had to consider whether failure to disclose HIV status could vitiate consent (and, equally, belief in consent) to sexual intercourse', {'entities': [(1, 42, 'Statute'), (731, 762, 'Case'), (627, 658, 'Case'), (660, 693, 'Case'), (698, 724, 'Case'), (764, 781, 'Case')]}), (' In Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin), the Divisional Court was concerned with the potential criminality in this country of having sexual intercourse without a condom when it had been made clear that consent was only forthcoming if a condom was used.\', " \'More recently, R(F) v DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin) was concerned with a decision not to prosecute where the allegation was that consent was forthcoming on the basis that ejaculation would only take place outside the body.", \' v Emmett [1988] AC 773 at 782 or that they were vitiated having been induced by a fundamental mistake as to law or fact', {'entities': [(4, 60, 'Case'), (74, 90, 'Court'), (302, 328, 'Case'), (514, 541, 'Case')]}), (' The only basis on which Mr Wainwright can argue that this court should now intervene is that the appellant was wrongly advised and did not appreciate the elements of the offence to which she was pleading guilty (see Revitt, Borg and Barnes v DPP [2006] EWHC 2266 Admin)', {'entities': [(217, 269, 'Case')]}), (' None of this demonstrates that the case would have failed on evidential grounds and neither it, nor the dispute between the appellant, her parents and Mr Thomas start to justify the conclusion that "the defence would quite probably have succeeded" so that "a clear injustice has been done": see R v Boal [1992] QB 591 at 599H-600A.\', " \'In R v ZBT [2012] EWCA Crim 1727, this court rejected the proposition that step-siblings in a familial context were in a relationship which gave rise to trust and postulated, by way of example, that there was no duty of care owed by the appellant to his step sister."]', {'entities': [(341, 370, 'Case'), (296, 318, 'Case')]}),