Mundle, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1289 (24 October 2024)

Mundle, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1289 (24 October 2024)

There was no logical inconsistency between the jury's verdicts on vaginal and anal rape; the evidence and directions allowed the jury to be sure of vaginal penetration but not anal penetration. The conviction for vaginal rape is safe.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 1289
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Philip Mundle
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Sexual Offences, Inconsistent Verdicts, Jury Directions, Appeal Against Conviction
Criminal Law Rape Sexual Offences Inconsistent Verdicts Jury Directions Appeal Against Conviction

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Philip Mundle

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's conviction for vaginal rape was logically inconsistent with its acquittal for anal rape
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for vaginal rape is unsafe due to alleged inconsistency

Ratio Decidendi

There was no logical inconsistency between the jury's verdicts on vaginal and anal rape; the evidence and directions allowed the jury to be sure of vaginal penetration but not anal penetration. The conviction for vaginal rape is safe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction for vaginal rape upheld
  • No order as to retrial or further proceedings