TF, R. v

TF, R. v

The convictions for rape under counts 9 and 10 were unsafe as the offences pre-dated the statutory inclusion of anal penetration as rape; they should have been charged as buggery. The court could not substitute convictions for buggery as it was not a lesser included offence on the indictment and the offences are mutually exclusive. The court had no jurisdiction to order a retrial for buggery. The remaining sentences were not manifestly excessive and the SHPO was justified.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: TF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction allowed in part; convictions for rape (counts 9 and 10) quashed; no substitution; appeal against sentence allowed to the extent of quashing sentences on counts 9 and 10; remaining sentences and SHPO upheld.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Appeal Procedure, Historic Abuse, Indictment Errors, Sentencing, Retrial Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Appeal Procedure Historic Abuse Indictment Errors Sentencing Retrial Jurisdiction

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

TF

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether convictions for rape under counts 9 and 10 were unsafe due to being charged under the wrong statutory provision
  2. 2 Whether the court could substitute convictions for buggery under s 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956
  3. 3 Whether the court had jurisdiction to order a retrial on counts 9 and 10

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions for rape under counts 9 and 10 were unsafe as the offences pre-dated the statutory inclusion of anal penetration as rape; they should have been charged as buggery. The court could not substitute convictions for buggery as it was not a lesser included offence on the indictment and the offences are mutually exclusive. The court had no jurisdiction to order a retrial for buggery. The remaining sentences were not manifestly excessive and the SHPO was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction allowed in part; convictions for rape (counts 9 and 10) quashed; no substitution; appeal against sentence allowed to the extent of quashing sentences on counts 9 and 10; remaining sentences and SHPO upheld.

Orders

  • Convictions for rape on counts 9 and 10 quashed
  • No substitution of convictions for buggery