Mullen, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 120 (28 January 2026)

Mullen, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 120 (28 January 2026)

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the complainant in count 2 lacked capacity to consent due to intoxication and/or that the applicant could not have reasonably believed in consent. The trial judge was correct not to withdraw the case from the jury. The imposition of consecutive extended...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Crim 120
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Oliver Jossie Mullen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Offences, Consent, Capacity to Consent, Extended Sentences, Totality Principle, Appeals
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Offences Consent Capacity to Consent Extended Sentences Totality Principle Appeals

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Oliver Jossie Mullen

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing a submission of no case to answer on count 2 (rape) based on capacity and reasonable belief in consent
  2. 2 Whether the convictions on both counts are unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the imposition of consecutive extended sentences was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the complainant in count 2 lacked capacity to consent due to intoxication and/or that the applicant could not have reasonably believed in consent. The trial judge was correct not to withdraw the case from the jury. The imposition of consecutive extended sentences, while not the preferred structure, was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given the seriousness, separation, and aggravating features of the offences.

Court Disposition

renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence dismissed

Orders

  • Renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
  • Appeal against sentence dismissed