Evans, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 2559 (06 November 2012)

Evans, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 2559 (06 November 2012)

The jury's verdicts were not inconsistent as they were properly directed to consider each defendant separately; the judge's directions on consent and intoxication were legally adequate; fresh evidence regarding memory loss did not undermine the safety of the verdict; the sentence imposed was within the guideline range and not unduly lenient.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Crim 2559
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Chedwyn Evans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Capacity, Fresh Evidence, Jury Verdicts, Sentencing
Criminal Law Rape Consent Capacity Fresh Evidence Jury Verdicts 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Chedwyn Evans

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury verdicts were inconsistent
  2. 2 Whether the judge's directions on consent and intoxication were adequate
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence regarding memory loss should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's verdicts were not inconsistent as they were properly directed to consider each defendant separately; the judge's directions on consent and intoxication were legally adequate; fresh evidence regarding memory loss did not undermine the safety of the verdict; the sentence imposed was within the guideline range and not unduly lenient.

Court Disposition

renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused

Orders

  • conviction and five-year sentence upheld
  • fresh evidence not admitted