S C v R [2000] EWCA Crim 19 (18th February, 2000)

S C v R [2000] EWCA Crim 19 (18th February, 2000)

The trial judge did not err in refusing separate trials as the alleged collusion provided a link justifying a joint trial; even if the recent complaint evidence was wrongly admitted, it did not render the conviction unsafe; the sentence imposed was excessive and should be reduced to nine years' imprisonment.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Crim 19
Parties
Appellant: S C; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Rape, Indecency With a Child, Similar Fact Evidence, Collusion, Recent Complaint, Sentencing Guidelines

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S C

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to order separate trials for rape and indecency charges
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting part of a conversation as recent complaint evidence
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in refusing separate trials as the alleged collusion provided a link justifying a joint trial; even if the recent complaint evidence was wrongly admitted, it did not render the conviction unsafe; the sentence imposed was excessive and should be reduced to nine years' imprisonment.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • Sentence for rape reduced from 12 years to 9 years' imprisonment