PRP v R

PRP v R

The exclusion of evidence about the complainant’s sexual abuse by her husband was correct as it was not relevant to any issue in the trial and did not fall within section 41 exceptions. No direction on doli incapax was required as the appellant was over 14 at the time of the indicted offences. The sentence was manifestly excessive due to the judge’s attribution of all psychological harm to the appellant and insufficient reduction for age and immaturity; the sentence was reduced from 18 to 16 years.

Parties
Appellant: PRP; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 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, Mental Health in Sentencing
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Evidence Sentencing Doli Incapax Mental Health in Sentencing

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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 complaints of sexual abuse and domestic violence against her former husband
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge wrongly failed to give a direction on doli incapax in relation to the appellant for incidents not forming part of the indictment
  3. 3 Whether the total sentence of 18 years was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of evidence about the complainant’s sexual abuse by her husband was correct as it was not relevant to any issue in the trial and did not fall within section 41 exceptions. No direction on doli incapax was required as the appellant was over 14 at the time of the indicted offences. The sentence was manifestly excessive due to the judge’s attribution of all psychological harm to the appellant and insufficient reduction for age and immaturity; the sentence was reduced 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 they were and concurrent