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.
Parties
S C
Appellant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to order separate trials for rape and indecency charges
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting part of a conversation as recent complaint evidence
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment