Jacobs, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1503 (21 December 2023)

Jacobs, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1503 (21 December 2023)

On the evidence available at trial, the applicant's autism was not relevant to the issue of reasonable belief in consent. The psychiatric reports did not establish a material connection between the applicant's autism and his perception of consent in the circumstances of the offence. The agreed facts were not misleading, and the tactical decisions of trial counsel were reasonable. The fresh psychiatric evidence was theoretical, not sufficiently tied to the facts, and would not have assisted the jury. There was no basis for admitting the fresh evidence or for concluding that the conviction was unsafe.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 1503
Parties
Applicant: Robin Edward Jacobs; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Reasonable Belief in Consent, Expert Evidence, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Criminal Law Rape Consent Autism Spectrum Disorder Reasonable Belief in Consent Expert Evidence Fresh Evidence on Appeal

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Edward Jacobs

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's autism was relevant to the reasonableness of his belief in the complainant's consent to anal intercourse
  2. 2 Whether the jury should have been directed to consider the applicant's autism when assessing reasonable belief in consent
  3. 3 Whether fresh psychiatric evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence available at trial, the applicant's autism was not relevant to the issue of reasonable belief in consent. The psychiatric reports did not establish a material connection between the applicant's autism and his perception of consent in the circumstances of the offence. The agreed facts were not misleading, and the tactical decisions of trial counsel were reasonable. The fresh psychiatric evidence was theoretical, not sufficiently tied to the facts, and would not have assisted the jury. There was no basis for admitting the fresh evidence or for concluding that the conviction was unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed