PRP, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1150 (04 October 2024)

PRP, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1150 (04 October 2024)

The trial judge was correct to exclude evidence of the complainant's allegations against her husband as it was not relevant to any issue in the trial and inadmissible under section 41 YJCEA 1999; no direction on doli incapax was required as the indictment did not cover periods when the appellant was under 14; the sentence was manifestly excessive due to misattribution of psychological harm and insufficient reduction for age and immaturity, warranting a reduction from 18 to 16 years.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 1150
Parties
Appellant: PRP; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Evidence, Sentencing, Doli Incapax, Appeals
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Sentencing Doli Incapax Appeals

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PRP

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of the complainant's allegations against her former husband
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to give a direction on doli incapax
  3. 3 Whether the sentence of 18 years was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to exclude evidence of the complainant's allegations against her husband as it was not relevant to any issue in the trial and inadmissible under section 41 YJCEA 1999; no direction on doli incapax was required as the indictment did not cover periods when the appellant was under 14; the sentence was manifestly excessive due to misattribution of psychological harm and insufficient reduction for age and immaturity, warranting a reduction from 18 to 16 years.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence on count 6 reduced from 18 years to 16 years' imprisonment
  • All other sentences to remain as imposed and concurrent