RAPE

[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 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.

[2018] EWHC 3469 (QB)

[2018] EWHC 3469 (QB)
DC (Lord Burnett LCJ, Jay J)
14 December 2018

A member of a group under police surveillance who had entered into a sexual relationship with an undercover police officer was unable to establish that her lack of knowledge as to the officer’s true identity vitiated her consent to sexual relations within the meaning of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.74. There was no justification for extending the common law position as contended for by the claimant, namely that the matter to which the deception related had to be sufficiently serious in objective terms as to be capable of being regarded as relevant to a woman’s decision-making and that, subjectively, the deception went to a matter which the woman regarded as critical or fundamental to her decision-making.

[2018] EWCA Crim 2933

[2018] EWCA Crim 2933
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, Cockerill J, Judge Walden-Smith)
28 November 2018

A 29-year extended sentence, which included a custodial term of 21 years, imposed on a young adult offender following a campaign of rape against victims aged between 13 and 16, was excessive. Insufficient weight had been given to the offender’s age, lack of maturity and unstable background. An extended sentence of 26 years, with an 18-year custodial term, was appropriate.

Scroll to top