JORGE MILLAN-HERNANDEZ'S FAILED BID TO CLEAR HIS NAME IN ABBOTS LANGLEY COURT OF APPEAL
| Red Rose Database
Abbots Langley Child Sexual Abuser
In December 2012, Jorge Millan-Hernandez, a man from The Fairway in Abbots Langley, faced a significant setback in his ongoing legal battles when his attempt to overturn his conviction was rejected by the Court of Appeal in London.
Millan-Hernandez, aged 52 at the time, had previously been sentenced to 15 years in prison after being found guilty at St Albans Crown Court in September 2009. The conviction stemmed from a series of heinous child sex offenses, including four counts of child rape. Despite the conviction, Millan-Hernandez maintained his innocence and sought to challenge the verdict through an appeal, claiming that errors had been made during his trial.
His appeal was heard before a panel of three of the country’s leading judges: Judge Francis Gilbert QC, Lord Justice Pitchford, and Mr Justice Kenneth Parker. After careful consideration, the judges unanimously dismissed his appeal, describing it as “unarguable” and lacking any substantive grounds for overturning the original verdict. Judge Gilbert explicitly stated that there was “no basis” for a successful appeal.
The allegations against Millan-Hernandez involved a young girl who was not yet a teenager at the time of the offenses. The victim accused him of a series of disturbing acts, including forced oral sex and full intercourse. During the trial, the court heard that when the girl resisted his advances, Millan-Hernandez threatened to harm her “in more ways than she could think of,” a statement that underscored the severity of his actions, as described by Judge Gilbert.
In his grounds for appeal, Millan-Hernandez argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury regarding the issue of consent, claiming that this misdirection could have influenced the jury’s decision. He also criticized the quality of his legal representation, asserting that his defense team had failed him, and contended that it was wrong for the judge not to allow him to present expert evidence at trial to challenge the prosecution’s case.
However, the judges rejected these claims. Judge Gilbert clarified that the issue of consent was irrelevant in this case because the victim was so young that she could not legally give consent to sexual activity. Therefore, any sexual acts would have been unlawful regardless of her ability to consent. He further explained that the directions given to the jury were actually in Millan-Hernandez’s favor and had been properly corrected by the judge to ensure they understood the legal standards.
Regarding the expert evidence, Judge Gilbert stated that the evidence presented by the prosecution was “neutral,” meaning that Millan-Hernandez did not require his own expert to challenge it. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and his conviction remains in place, reaffirming the serious nature of his crimes and the court’s stance on protecting vulnerable minors from such offenses.
Millan-Hernandez, aged 52 at the time, had previously been sentenced to 15 years in prison after being found guilty at St Albans Crown Court in September 2009. The conviction stemmed from a series of heinous child sex offenses, including four counts of child rape. Despite the conviction, Millan-Hernandez maintained his innocence and sought to challenge the verdict through an appeal, claiming that errors had been made during his trial.
His appeal was heard before a panel of three of the country’s leading judges: Judge Francis Gilbert QC, Lord Justice Pitchford, and Mr Justice Kenneth Parker. After careful consideration, the judges unanimously dismissed his appeal, describing it as “unarguable” and lacking any substantive grounds for overturning the original verdict. Judge Gilbert explicitly stated that there was “no basis” for a successful appeal.
The allegations against Millan-Hernandez involved a young girl who was not yet a teenager at the time of the offenses. The victim accused him of a series of disturbing acts, including forced oral sex and full intercourse. During the trial, the court heard that when the girl resisted his advances, Millan-Hernandez threatened to harm her “in more ways than she could think of,” a statement that underscored the severity of his actions, as described by Judge Gilbert.
In his grounds for appeal, Millan-Hernandez argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury regarding the issue of consent, claiming that this misdirection could have influenced the jury’s decision. He also criticized the quality of his legal representation, asserting that his defense team had failed him, and contended that it was wrong for the judge not to allow him to present expert evidence at trial to challenge the prosecution’s case.
However, the judges rejected these claims. Judge Gilbert clarified that the issue of consent was irrelevant in this case because the victim was so young that she could not legally give consent to sexual activity. Therefore, any sexual acts would have been unlawful regardless of her ability to consent. He further explained that the directions given to the jury were actually in Millan-Hernandez’s favor and had been properly corrected by the judge to ensure they understood the legal standards.
Regarding the expert evidence, Judge Gilbert stated that the evidence presented by the prosecution was “neutral,” meaning that Millan-Hernandez did not require his own expert to challenge it. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and his conviction remains in place, reaffirming the serious nature of his crimes and the court’s stance on protecting vulnerable minors from such offenses.