Stephenson, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1600 (31 October 2025)

Stephenson, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1600 (31 October 2025)

The conviction is unsafe because the complainant's fresh evidence fundamentally altered the narrative presented at trial, introducing significant changes regarding her conduct and consent, and included admissions of deliberate lies. The jury, had it heard this evidence, may have reached a different verdict.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1600
Parties
Appellant: Jerome Stephenson; Respondent: Rex (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Referred by Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Rape, Fresh Evidence, Unsafe Conviction, Sexual Offences, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Rape Fresh Evidence Unsafe Conviction Sexual Offences Appeal Procedure

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 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jerome Stephenson

Appellant

Rex (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Referred by Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence from the complainant renders the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the jury would have reached the same verdict had the fresh evidence been available at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is unsafe because the complainant's fresh evidence fundamentally altered the narrative presented at trial, introducing significant changes regarding her conduct and consent, and included admissions of deliberate lies. The jury, had it heard this evidence, may have reached a different verdict.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • No retrial ordered