DB, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 881 (26 July 2024)

DB, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 881 (26 July 2024)

The judge's directions on cross-admissibility and consent were adequate given the uncontested nature of the bad character application and the defence's denial of all allegations; the indictment and directions did not undermine the safety of the conviction; count 8 was properly charged as indecent assault and not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 881
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: DB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Historical Sexual Offences, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Indecency With a Child, Indecent Assault, Rape, Buggery, Abuse of Process, Sentencing, Bad Character Evidence, Consent
Criminal Law Historical Sexual Offences Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Indecency With a Child Indecent Assault Rape Buggery Abuse of Process +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

DB

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's direction on cross-admissibility was inadequate
  2. 2 Whether the jury was misdirected on the issue of consent
  3. 3 Whether the indictment was legally flawed regarding consent

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's directions on cross-admissibility and consent were adequate given the uncontested nature of the bad character application and the defence's denial of all allegations; the indictment and directions did not undermine the safety of the conviction; count 8 was properly charged as indecent assault and not time-barred; the sentences imposed exceeded statutory maximums and the surcharge order was unlawful, requiring adjustment.

Court Disposition

Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence on count 4 quashed and substituted with 10 years (9 years imprisonment plus 1-year licence period)
  • Concurrent sentence on count 9 quashed and substituted with 9 years imprisonment