RAPE

[2020] EWCA Crim 137
[2020] EWCA Crim 137
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Cutts J, Eady J)
12 February 2020

In a rape trial where the central issue was credibility, the judge had been entitled to permit the prosecution to adduce evidence of a defence witness’s bad character under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.100(1)(b). The fact that the witness had been convicted of serious sexual offences might fairly be regarded as providing an explanation of why he might be prepared to lie to assist a friend accused of similar offences.

[2019] EWHC 3177 (Fam)
[2019] EWHC 3177 (Fam)
Fam Div (Cobb J)
21 November 2019

The court upheld a finding of fact made during a fact-finding hearing in the context of a father’s application for a child arrangements order. The judge had carefully evaluated the evidence when she found that the father had raped the child’s mother, resulting in the conception of the child.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1634
[2019] EWCA Crim 1634
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Lavender J, Fancourt J)
4 October 2019

In a complex trial in which 11 defendants faced numerous charges arising from their alleged sexual exploitation of teenage girls, the fact that one of the jurors had conducted internet research and told the others that one of the defendants had previously served a custodial sentence did not mean that the entire jury should be discharged. It was sufficient to discharge the juror in question, order a retrial in respect of the defendant in question, and permit the remaining jurors to continue in respect of the other 10 defendants.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1568
[2019] EWCA Crim 1568
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Warby J, Edis J)
17 September 2019

A challenge, by way of judicial review, by a young offender convicted of the murder and rape of a 14-year-old girl, to an excepting direction which discharged a reporting restriction order imposed under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.45(3), was refused.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1363
[2019] EWCA Crim 1363
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Popplewell J, Judge Marson QC)
18 July 2019

Convictions for rape and indecent assault were deemed unsafe where a judge had failed to give a jury clear directions as to whether, and if so how, they could rely on the evidence of each victim when considering the allegations made by the other.

[2019] EWCA Crim 887
[2019] EWCA Crim 887
CA (Crim Div) (Nicola Davies LJ, Spencer J, Morris J)
22 May 2019

Despite the absence of certain evidence at trial, the appellant’s convictions for sexual assault and rape of his half-sister were safe, because the totality of the trial process including the directions given and the summing up was fair.

[2019] EWCA Crim 665
[2019] EWCA Crim 665
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Warby J, Sir John Royce)
28 March 2019

There might be cases where guidance from the trial judge on myths and stereotypes in rape cases would be appropriate to benefit a defendant, but the instant case, in which the defendant was charged with perjury and perverting the course of justice after making repeated and false allegations of rape, was not one of them. Given the evidence called, even if the guidance had been given, it would not have assisted the defendant.

[2019] EWHC 183 (Admin)
[2019] EWHC 183 (Admin)
DC (Nicola Davies LJ, Nicol J)
5 February 2019

The Criminal Cases Review Commission had been justified in refusing to refer the claimant’s two convictions for sexual offences to the Court of Appeal. The fresh evidence on which he had sought to rely did not give rise to a real possibility that the convictions would not be upheld.

[2020] EWCA Crim 4
[2020] EWCA Crim 4
CA (Crim Div) (Green LJ, Soole J, Judge Walden-Smith)
16 January 2019

A judge had not erred in admitting evidence of a defendant’s previous convictions during a trial for kidnapping, rape and assault as rebuttal evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(g) against the defendant’s attack on the complainant’s credibility.

[2019] EWCA Crim 31
[2019] EWCA Crim 31
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Cheema-Grubb J)
15 January 2019

A sentence of three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender for historic offences of buggery and indecent assault on a fellow resident at a children’s home was unduly lenient. The offender satisfied the dangerousness criteria and a sentence of five years and ten months’ imprisonment with a three-year extension period was appropriate.

Scroll to top