H, R. v

H, R. v

The trial judge erred by withdrawing the case from the jury; there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider the issues of consent and capacity to consent. It is for the jury, not the judge, to determine these issues based on the evidence.

Parties
Applicant: Crown Prosecution Service; Respondent: H
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Trial Judge's Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Capacity to Consent, Submission of No Case to Answer, Jury Determination
Criminal Law Rape Consent Capacity to Consent Submission of No Case to Answer Jury Determination

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service

Applicant

H

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Trial Judge's Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider the issues of consent and capacity to consent in a rape charge
  2. 2 whether the trial judge erred in withdrawing the case from the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by withdrawing the case from the jury; there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider the issues of consent and capacity to consent. It is for the jury, not the judge, to determine these issues based on the evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • leave to appeal granted
  • trial judge's ruling quashed