R v HEF

R v HEF

There was no risk that the jury were misled regarding C2's capacity to consent; the prosecution did not raise incapacity as an issue, and the judge's directions, though not perfect, did not render the verdict unsafe. The section 34 direction was properly revised, and no impermissible inferences were invited...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: HEF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Consent, Capacity to Consent, Adverse Inference, Reporting Restrictions
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Consent Capacity to Consent Adverse Inference Reporting Restrictions

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

HEF

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether jury misdirection on capacity to consent rendered verdict unsafe
  2. 2 Whether adverse inference direction regarding police interview was improper
  3. 3 Whether prosecution invited impermissible inferences regarding effects of cannabis

Ratio Decidendi

There was no risk that the jury were misled regarding C2's capacity to consent; the prosecution did not raise incapacity as an issue, and the judge's directions, though not perfect, did not render the verdict unsafe. The section 34 direction was properly revised, and no impermissible inferences were invited regarding cannabis effects. The appeal is dismissed as the convictions are safe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • renewed application for leave refused
  • convictions upheld