Robin Edward Jacobs v R

Robin Edward Jacobs v R

The applicant's autism was not shown by the available or fresh psychiatric evidence to be relevant to the reasonableness of his belief in the complainant's consent to anal intercourse. The expert evidence did not sufficiently relate the applicant's autism to the facts of the case, and any connection was described as theoretical and unsupported by the applicant's prior experiences. The agreed facts were not misleading, the tactical decisions of the defence were reasonable, and there was no basis for a direction to the jury on autism. The fresh evidence was inadmissible, unreliable, and would not have affected the safety of the conviction.

Parties
Applicant: Robin Edward Jacobs; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and to Rely on Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against conviction and to rely on fresh evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Reasonable Belief in Consent, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Criminal Law Rape Consent Reasonable Belief in Consent Autism Spectrum Disorder Admissibility of 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Edward Jacobs

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and to Rely on Fresh Evidence

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 the agreed facts and expert evidence before the jury were misleading or incomplete

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's autism was not shown by the available or fresh psychiatric evidence to be relevant to the reasonableness of his belief in the complainant's consent to anal intercourse. The expert evidence did not sufficiently relate the applicant's autism to the facts of the case, and any connection was described as theoretical and unsupported by the applicant's prior experiences. The agreed facts were not misleading, the tactical decisions of the defence were reasonable, and there was no basis for a direction to the jury on autism. The fresh evidence was inadmissible, unreliable, and would not have affected the safety of the conviction.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against conviction and to rely on fresh evidence refused.