Philo-Steele, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 1016 (31 July 2020)

Philo-Steele, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 1016 (31 July 2020)

The trial judge did not err in refusing the section 41 applications as the excluded evidence was not relevant to any issue in the case and would have served only to impugn the complainants' credibility, contrary to statutory restrictions. The convictions are therefore safe. The judge's assessment of dangerousness and the extended sentence imposed were justified by the facts, expert evidence, and aggravating factors, and were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Crim 1016
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Alexander Philo-Steele
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Child Sexual Abuse, Admissibility of Evidence, Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Dangerousness Assessment, Sentencing
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Child Sexual Abuse Admissibility of Evidence Section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Dangerousness Assessment Sentencing

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Alexander Philo-Steele

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing two defence applications under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to admit evidence of complainants' sexual behaviour/history
  2. 2 Whether the convictions are unsafe as a result of those refusals
  3. 3 Whether the judge was wrong to find the appellant dangerous and impose an extended sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in refusing the section 41 applications as the excluded evidence was not relevant to any issue in the case and would have served only to impugn the complainants' credibility, contrary to statutory restrictions. The convictions are therefore safe. The judge's assessment of dangerousness and the extended sentence imposed were justified by the facts, expert evidence, and aggravating factors, and were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.