Hilly, R. v
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE TREACY
- MR JUSTICE GRIFFITH WILLIAMS
- MR JUSTICE LEWIS
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against a conviction of rape where the appellant was sentenced to ten years. The victim, who had past struggles with drug addiction, alleged non-consensual anal penetration by the appellant. The appellant argued the act was consensual and sought to cross-examine the victim on prior unproven sexual abuse allegations to challenge her credibility. The trial court restricted such cross-examination, and the appellate court upheld this decision, affirming the need for a proper evidential basis to probe prior complaints. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE TREACY:
1. On 1st November 2013, in the Crown Court at Swansea, this appellant was convicted of rape. In due course he was sentenced to an extended sentence of ten years, comprising a custodial term of five years with an extension period of five years. He was sentenced to concurrent terms arising from his guilty pleas to two counts of possessing an extreme pornographic image. Ancillary orders were made. The single judge has granted leave to appeal against conviction. We confirm that the usual reporting restrictions concerning the victim in this case apply.
2. The victim was a 27-year-old woman. Both she and the appellant had struggled with drug addiction. They met at a Narcotics Anonymous meeting in 2011. On 18th November of that year they began a sexual relationship. There was no dispute that the complainant was attracted to the appellant and quite willing to have a sexual relationship.
3. The Crown's case was that on the evening of 25th November the victim invited the appellant to her home. The pair had consensual oral sex. After this the appellant penetrated her anus with his penis. This had begun consensually but it hurt the victim and she told him to stop. However, he ignored those protests and continued to penetrate her, knowing that she was not consenting. The penetration was hard and fast and went on for several minutes. The appellant ignored the complainant's repeated protests. Indeed, at one point he said, "I'm anally raping you". As the jury's verdict showed, this was true.
4. The defence case was that the victim had consented to the anal intercourse, the victim had enjoyed it and had not told him to stop. When she did say it was hurting, he had stopped of his own accord.
5. So the issue for the jury was one of consent, with the credibility of the victim's account being of vital importance.
6. In the course of her ABE interviews, and also through the ordinary and proper disclosure process, it was disclosed to the defence that the complainant had made previous allegations of sexual assault by men other than this appellant. Before any evidence was heard counsel raised with the judge whether he might be permitted to cross-examine her about those matters. The judge gave an initial ruling that since there was no evidence that the allegations were false, such cross-examination should not take place. However, the judge indicated he would leave the matter open and would hear further argument if need be.
7. The