Green v R. [2025] EWCA Crim 923 (18 July 2025)

Green v R. [2025] EWCA Crim 923 (18 July 2025)

The convictions on counts 1 and 2 (rape of C1) were unsafe due to the judge's misdirection on the issue of consent by applying the wrong statutory test; there was evidence from which a jury might have found a genuine, albeit unreasonable, belief in consent. The convictions on counts 3 to 8 were safe as the directions given were sufficient and no prejudice arose from the absence of further directions on cross-admissibility or bad character.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 923
Parties
Appellant: Peter Paul Zeberian Green; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; convictions on counts 1 and 2 quashed; no retrial ordered; convictions and sentence on counts 3 to 8 upheld.
Legal Topics
Rape, Attempted Rape, Indecent Assault, Consent, Bad Character Evidence, Jury Directions, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Rape Attempted Rape Indecent Assault Consent Bad Character Evidence Jury Directions 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Paul Zeberian Green

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of consent by applying the wrong statutory test
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a cross-admissibility direction rendered the convictions unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a bad character direction rendered the convictions unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions on counts 1 and 2 (rape of C1) were unsafe due to the judge's misdirection on the issue of consent by applying the wrong statutory test; there was evidence from which a jury might have found a genuine, albeit unreasonable, belief in consent. The convictions on counts 3 to 8 were safe as the directions given were sufficient and no prejudice arose from the absence of further directions on cross-admissibility or bad character.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; convictions on counts 1 and 2 quashed; no retrial ordered; convictions and sentence on counts 3 to 8 upheld.

Orders

  • Convictions on counts 1 and 2 quashed
  • Sentences on counts 1 and 2 set aside