Introduction

The case of Raymond Nyiam v Her Majesty's Advocate ([2021] ScotHC HCJAC_44) presents a pivotal moment in Scottish sexual offence jurisprudence. Decided by the Scottish High Court of Justiciary on October 19, 2021, this appeal challenges the conviction of Raymond Nyiam, who was found guilty of rape under circumstances involving the complainants' intoxication. The key issue revolves around whether the trial court erred in its directions to the jury concerning the concept of "reasonable belief" in consent.

Parties Involved:

• Appellant: Raymond Nyiam
• Respondent: Her Majesty's Advocate
• Legal Representation: C M Mitchell QC and Findlater; Adams Whyte for the appellant; Charteris QC, Solicitor General for Scotland, J Keenan (sol adv), and Crown Agent for the respondent.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant, Raymond Nyiam, was convicted of two charges of rape based on the complainants' intoxicated states, which rendered them incapable of giving or withholding consent. The jury had amended the charges by removing the phrases "and asleep or unconscious." Nyiam appealed, arguing that the trial court misdirected the jury by not considering the issue of "reasonable belief" in consent.

The High Court, however, upheld the convictions, finding that the trial court's directions were appropriate. The court emphasized that the concept of "reasonable belief" in consent is not a live issue in cases where the evidence clearly indicates the complainants' incapacity to consent due to intoxication. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Legal Reasoning

The High Court meticulously dissected the appellant's contention that the trial court failed to provide appropriate directions regarding "reasonable belief." The court found that the appellants' argument misconstrued the nature of reasonable belief within the context of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009.

The court noted that reasonable belief in consent should only be a live issue if specific evidence suggests a possibility of consent that requires evaluation. In Nyiam's case, the complainants' extreme intoxication was sufficiently established, negating any reasonable belief of consent by the appellant. The court further explained that reasonable belief is usually inferred from the surrounding circumstances and does not require separate corroborative evidence unless the situation explicitly necessitates it.

Additionally, the court criticized the appellant's reliance on prior discussions with counsel, highlighting that these did not substantiate the necessity for additional jury directions on reasonable belief. The court maintained that the trial judge's directions were comprehensive and adequately covered the pertinent legal principles, aligning with established precedents.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the existing legal framework regarding consent and reasonable belief under Scottish law. By upholding the conviction and clarifying the role of reasonable belief, the court provides clear guidance for future cases:

• Jury Directions: Courts must continue to ensure that jury directions accurately reflect the law, distinguishing between established incapacity due to intoxication and situations where reasonable belief in consent may be contested.
• Legal Clarity: Reinforces that reasonable belief is an inferred element and not a standalone defense, streamlining the prosecution process in consent-based cases.
• Precedential Value: Solidifies the interpretations from preceding cases like Maqsood and Graham, ensuring consistency across judicial decisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reasonable Belief in Consent

In the context of sexual offences, "reasonable belief" refers to whether the accused genuinely and reasonably believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity. This belief must be based on the evidence available at the time and aligns with what a reasonable person would think in similar circumstances.

Live Issue

A "live issue" is a point of fact that is in dispute and requires determination by the jury. If the evidence does not reasonably support a particular issue being in contention, it is not considered a live issue. In this case, the court determined that "reasonable belief" was not a live issue because the evidence overwhelmingly indicated the complainants' incapacity to consent.

Intoxication and Capacity to Consent

Intoxication can impair an individual's ability to consent to sexual activity. The extent of intoxication determines whether the person is merely impaired or entirely incapable of giving consent. Under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, extreme intoxication can render consent invalid.

Conclusion

The High Court of Justiciary's decision in Raymond Nyiam v Her Majesty's Advocate reaffirms the judiciary's stance on the interplay between intoxication and consent within Scottish sexual offence law. The court clarified that "reasonable belief" in consent should not be universally applied to every case but should instead be inferred based on the specific circumstances and evidence presented. This judgment underscores the necessity for precise jury directions and adherence to established legal principles, ensuring that convictions are based on clear evidence of incapacity to consent rather than unfounded beliefs of consent. The ruling serves as a critical reference point for future cases, emphasizing the court's commitment to upholding justice and the integrity of sexual offence jurisprudence in Scotland.