C v R. (Rev 2)

C v R. (Rev 2)

The jury was entitled to find that the complainant's apparent consent to sexual activity after age 16 was not genuine but the result of the appellant's long-term abuse, dominance, and control. The trial judge's directions were clear and appropriate, and the convictions were safe. Sentencing was corrected to comply with statutory requirements, but the overall sentence remained unaffected.

Parties
Appellant: C; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; sentence corrected but overall term unchanged.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Consent, Abuse of Children, Appeals, Sentencing
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Consent Abuse of Children Appeals 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 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for sexual offences was safe given evidence of apparent consent after the complainant turned 16
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in not withdrawing counts 10-18 from the jury
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing was correct under the relevant statutory provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The jury was entitled to find that the complainant's apparent consent to sexual activity after age 16 was not genuine but the result of the appellant's long-term abuse, dominance, and control. The trial judge's directions were clear and appropriate, and the convictions were safe. Sentencing was corrected to comply with statutory requirements, but the overall sentence remained unaffected.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; sentence corrected but overall term unchanged.

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • Extended sentences on counts 13-15 replaced with concurrent sentences of 18 years imprisonment