Introduction

The case of Costanzo & Anor v R ([2021] EWCA Crim 615) pertains to two young men, Lorenzo Costanzo and Ferdinando Orlando, who were convicted of rape under section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The convictions were upheld by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) after the applicants sought to renew their appeals based on amended grounds and fresh evidence. The core issues revolved around the admissibility of the complainant's sexual history under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and the procedural fairness in handling new grounds of appeal post-dismissal.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the renewed applications for leave to appeal brought by Costanzo and Orlando. The court upheld the original convictions, emphasizing the appropriateness of the trial judge's decisions regarding the exclusion of certain evidence under Section 41. The applicants' attempts to introduce new grounds related to the complainant’s sexual history and undisclosed DNA evidence were rejected due to procedural lapses and the failure to meet the stringent criteria for introducing fresh grounds at such a late stage in the appeal process.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key precedents that shape the application of rape shield laws:

• R v A (No.2) [2002] 1 AC 45: Established the framework to prevent prejudicial use of a complainant's sexual history.
• R v Shaw [2002] EWCA Crim 3004: Highlighted the necessity for transparency and fairness when a witness changes their account.
• R v McCook [2014] EWCA Crim 734: Emphasized the importance of due diligence and procedural correctness in appeals.
• R v James and others [2018] EWCA Crim 285: Reinforced the requirements for introducing fresh grounds of appeal, stressing the high threshold for such submissions.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning focused on the strict interpretation of Section 41, which restricts the use of a complainant’s sexual history in sexual offence cases to prevent prejudice. The applicants argued that the prosecution’s use of the complainant's past sexual behavior necessitated a reciprocal allowance for the defense to introduce similar evidence to ensure fairness under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, the court held that the prosecution's deployment of the complainant's sexual history was within the bounds of Section 41(3)(a), as it was directly relevant to the issue of consent in the case at hand. The defense's attempt to introduce similar evidence was deemed to exceed the permissible limits, as it sought to undermine the complainant's credibility rather than rebut specific points raised by the prosecution.

Furthermore, the court addressed procedural concerns regarding the late introduction of new grounds. It underscored that the criminal appeal process mandates that all grounds be presented early, and deviations from this practice are only entertained under exceptional circumstances, which were not met in this case.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the protective scope of rape shield laws under Section 41, affirming that these provisions are robust safeguards against the prejudicial use of a complainant’s sexual history. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to balancing the rights of the defendant with the protection of victims from intrusive and irrelevant questioning. Future cases will likely reference this decision to justify the exclusion of similar defenses attempting to exploit Section 41's boundaries.

Additionally, the case illustrates the judiciary's strict adherence to procedural norms in the appellate process, highlighting the difficulty of introducing new grounds of appeal after initial dismissals, thereby promoting finality and efficiency in legal proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in R v Costanzo & Anor reaffirms the stringent protections offered by rape shield provisions under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. By dismissing the applicants' attempts to introduce new grounds related to the complainant's sexual history and undisclosed DNA evidence, the court underscored the importance of procedural integrity and the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of sexual offence victims against prejudicial questioning. This judgment serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the boundaries within which sexual history evidence can be introduced and upholding the principles of fairness and justice in sexual offence litigation.