Introduction

Yellambai & Ors, R v [2025] EWCA Crim 365 is an appeal brought by three defendants— Rana Yellambai (“RY”), Vahar Manchala (“VM”) and Ajay Doppalapudi (“AD”)—against their convictions for kidnap and their 10-year sentences. After an initial trial and a retrial, each was convicted of count 1 (kidnap by deception) but acquitted or discharged on related sexual‐offence counts. Leave to appeal against conviction was refused by a single judge, and this judgment records the Court of Appeal’s refusal of leave on conviction grounds but grant of leave to appeal on sentence. The key issues include:

• The scope of a “no case to answer” submission on a count of kidnapping by deception.
• Whether verdicts can be inconsistent across separate counts in a multi‐charge indictment.
• The proper approach to sentencing in complex kidnap cases and the invitation to reconvene a full court to give further guidance.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal, presided over by Martin Spencer J, unanimously held:

1. There was ample evidence to send count 1 (kidnap by deception) to the jury. The complainant’s evidence that defendants lied about giving her a lift home, coupled with the continuous‐offence nature of kidnap, made the “no case to answer” submission unsustainable.
2. The jury properly reached rationally consistent verdicts on count 1 independently of its findings on the sexual‐offence counts. A multi‐count indictment allows separate consideration; inconsistent verdicts do not, without more, justify setting aside the conviction on one count.
3. The judge’s summing‐up was fair and even‐handed; criticisms of imbalance or confusion were rejected.
4. Leave to appeal against conviction was refused. However, the court granted leave to appeal against sentence, noting the need for updated sentencing guidance in kidnap cases given the age of some authorities and the complexity of the issues.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Although the judgment does not name many cases, it relies on established principles and statutory provisions:

• Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Publication restrictions protecting a sexual‐offence victim’s identity (s. 3 waiver/lift requirement).
• Criminal Justice Act 1967, section 17: Discharging the jury and entering not guilty verdicts where unanimity cannot be reached.
• Common‐law principle of continuous offences: Kidnap is a continuing offence—participation at any stage after the initial deception suffices (endorsing earlier appellate authority).
• Longstanding authorities on inconsistent verdicts: Appeals on this ground face a high bar; a rational explanation for differing verdicts suffices to uphold them.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in three principal strands:

1. No Case to Answer: The judge’s half-time ruling allowed count 1 to go to the jury. The complainant’s testimony that she boarded the car believing it was a taxi, was told she would be taken home, but was later driven off-course, was a sufficient evidential foundation for kidnapping by deception. The continuous‐offence doctrine meant that even if some defendants joined later, they could be guilty.
2. Independence of Verdicts: The indictment contained separate counts for kidnapping and sexual offences. The judge’s “route to verdict” directed the jury to decide count 1 before addressing the others. This procedure, agreed by counsel, ensured count 1 stood or fell on its own. Inconsistent verdict arguments failed because the jury may rationally have accepted the deceit and detention element but harboured reasonable doubt about specific sexual offences or the defendants’ knowledge of them.
3. Fairness of Summing‐Up: The appellants asserted that the trial judge’s summation was unbalanced and insufficiently tied to their distinct defenses. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the judge accurately recited each—particularly RY’s, who denied involvement or knowledge—and gave clear legal directions on mens rea, consent, and lawful excuse.

Impact

This judgment will guide practitioners and judges in several respects:

• It reaffirms that a “no case to answer” submission on kidnapping by deception requires minimal evidential threshold if a defendant’s deceit is established.
• It reinforces the autonomy of verdicts on separate counts: appellants cannot lightly challenge one conviction because they were acquitted on another count.
• It underlines the importance of a clear “route to verdict” and separate legal directions when multiple counts engage different elements of criminal liability.
• By granting leave on sentence, the Court signals a pending full‐bench review of sentencing principles in modern kidnapping cases, potentially updating guidelines that date back decades.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Continuous Offence

A crime that spans a period: once unlawful detention begins, anyone joining during the detention can be guilty, even if they were not present at the very start.

No Case to Answer

A defense motion claiming the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence to send a count to the jury. It succeeds only if no jury properly directed could convict.

Inconsistent Verdicts

Occurs when a jury convicts on one count but acquits on a related count. Appeals on this basis require proof that no rational jury could have aligned the verdicts logically.

Conclusion

Yellambai & Ors clarifies critical principles in criminal appeals:

• The threshold for a “no case to answer” on kidnapping by deception is low once the complainant’s evidence of deceit and detention is accepted.
• Separate counts must be judged on separate evidence and legal directions; acquittal on one does not invalidate conviction on another if jury reasoning is coherent.
• Sentencing in kidnapping cases remains fertile ground for further guidance, prompting a full Court of Appeal consideration.

This decision therefore cements the autonomy of multi‐count verdicts and reinforces the continuous‐offence doctrine, while opening the door for refreshed sentencing benchmarks in kidnapping offences.