C v R. (Rev 2) [2012] EWCA Crim 2034 (09 October 2012)

C v R. (Rev 2) [2012] EWCA Crim 2034 (09 October 2012)

The jury was entitled to find that the complainant's apparent consent after age 16 was not real but the product of long-term abuse, domination, and control by the appellant, and the trial judge's directions were correct. The convictions were safe. The extended sentence imposed on counts 13-15 was unlawful as those offences predated the commencement of s.85 of the 2000 Act; sentences of 18 years' imprisonment were substituted for those counts, to run concurrently, leaving the overall sentence unaffected.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Crim 2034
Parties
Appellant: C; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Correction
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; sentence corrected as to counts 13-15
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Rape, Consent, Extended Sentences, Abuse of Children
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Rape Consent Extended Sentences Abuse of Children

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

Parties

C

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence Correction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for sexual offences against the complainant was safe given evidence of apparent consent after age 16
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were correct regarding the relevance of childhood abuse to later alleged consensual acts
  3. 3 Whether the extended sentence imposed was lawful under the relevant statutory provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The jury was entitled to find that the complainant's apparent consent after age 16 was not real but the product of long-term abuse, domination, and control by the appellant, and the trial judge's directions were correct. The convictions were safe. The extended sentence imposed on counts 13-15 was unlawful as those offences predated the commencement of s.85 of the 2000 Act; sentences of 18 years' imprisonment were substituted for those counts, to run concurrently, leaving the overall sentence unaffected.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; sentence corrected as to counts 13-15

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • Extended sentence on counts 13-15 quashed and replaced with 18 years' imprisonment on each, to run concurrently with counts 16-18