Ndhlovu, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 231 (22 February 2024)
There were no arguable grounds for appeal against conviction. The sentence of five years' imprisonment on each count of rape, to run concurrently, was properly imposed. The victim surcharge order was quashed as it was not pronounced in open court and thus invalid.
- Citation
- [2024] EWCA Crim 231
- Parties
- Prosecution: Rex; Appellant: Lucas Ndhlovu
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 22 February 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal against conviction refused; sentence confirmed; victim surcharge order quashed.
- Legal Topics
- Rape, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Victim Surcharge, Fresh Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rex
Prosecution
Lucas Ndhlovu
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there are arguable grounds for leave to appeal against conviction
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was correct and lawfully pronounced
- 3 Validity of administratively imposed victim surcharge
Ratio Decidendi
There were no arguable grounds for appeal against conviction. The sentence of five years' imprisonment on each count of rape, to run concurrently, was properly imposed. The victim surcharge order was quashed as it was not pronounced in open court and thus invalid.
Court Disposition
Appeal against conviction refused; sentence confirmed; victim surcharge order quashed.
Orders
- Refusal of extension of time for leave to appeal against conviction
- Refusal of leave to appeal against conviction
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment