A v R. (Rev 3) [2015] EWCA Crim 177 (19 February 2015)

A v R. (Rev 3) [2015] EWCA Crim 177 (19 February 2015)

The convictions were not inconsistent as the jury could properly reach different conclusions for each defendant based on separate allegations and evidence. The fresh evidence did not materially affect the safety of the conviction. The sentence was excessive as the judge sentenced for more offences than were proved; the appellant should have been sentenced for two offences of rape and two of sexual assault by penetration.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Crim 177
Parties
Appellant: A; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Assault, Multiple Incident Counts, Sentencing Guidelines, Fresh Evidence, Inconsistent Verdicts
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Assault Multiple Incident Counts Sentencing Guidelines Fresh Evidence Inconsistent Verdicts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdicts were fatally inconsistent between appellant and co-accused
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence undermined the safety of the conviction
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the basis of conviction

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were not inconsistent as the jury could properly reach different conclusions for each defendant based on separate allegations and evidence. The fresh evidence did not materially affect the safety of the conviction. The sentence was excessive as the judge sentenced for more offences than were proved; the appellant should have been sentenced for two offences of rape and two of sexual assault by penetration.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.

Orders

  • Sentence on count 2 reduced to 12 years' imprisonment.
  • Sentence on count 4 reduced to 6 years' imprisonment, concurrent.