Introduction

Price v ([2024] EWCA Crim 463) is a landmark judgment delivered by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on May 3, 2024. The case revolves around the appellant, aged 78 at the time of sentencing, who was convicted of indecent assault under section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The core issue pertains to whether the appellant's actions—specifically, requesting and engaging in oral sex with a complainant who was under the age of 16—constituted an indecent assault, despite the absence of force or threats traditionally associated with such offences.

The appeal challenges the conviction on two primary grounds: firstly, that the court erred in defining the appellant's actions as an assault absent any force or coercion; and secondly, that there was insufficient evidence to support multiple counts of indecent assault.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant was initially convicted of two counts of indecent assault related to actions he undertook when the complainant was aged 15, contravening section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. These counts involved making the complainant perform oral sex, which led to their conviction and sentencing. On appeal, the Court of Appeal meticulously examined whether the appellant's conduct met the legal criteria for indecent assault, particularly focusing on the necessity of an assault involving force or coercion.

The Court upheld the conviction, rejecting the appellant's arguments that the absence of force negated the classification of his actions as an assault. The appellate court distinguished the present case from previous rulings, emphasizing that the nature of penetration inherently involves a level of force, even if not overtly coercive. Additionally, the court addressed the second ground of appeal concerning the sufficiency of evidence for multiple counts, ultimately affirming that the evidence supported convictions on both counts.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced and distinguished several key precedents to establish the boundaries of what constitutes an indecent assault under the law. Notably:

• Fairclough v Whipp (1951): Determined that an invitation to touch does not amount to an assault.
• R v Brooks [2021] EWCA Crim 1468: Differentiated cases involving actual application of force in sexual assault.
• R v Dunn [2015] EWCA Crim 724: Addressed the nuances of consent in cases of penetration by minors.
• R v Rogers (1953): Clarified that coercion or threat is necessary for certain assault definitions.
• R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039: Provided guidelines on submissions of no case to answer.
• R v J [2004] UKHL 42: Reaffirmed that penetration without consent constitutes indecent assault regardless of force.

These precedents collectively informed the court's interpretation of assault versus battery, and the specific application to sexual offences involving minors.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal delved into the fundamental principles distinguishing assault from battery. Drawing upon Robert Goff LJ's elucidation in Collins v Wilcock [1984], the court reiterated that assault encompasses acts causing apprehension of immediate force, while battery involves the actual infliction of unlawful force. However, in the context of indecent assault under section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the court emphasized that any penetration, even without overt force, satisfies the criteria for assault.

The appellate court acknowledged the appellant's reliance on the Fairclough precedent but distinguished the current case based on the nature of penetration, which inherently involves a degree of force. The court also scrutinized the defense's argument regarding the reliability of the complainant's memory due to the passage of time, finding it insufficient to overturn the conviction given the corroborative evidence presented.

Furthermore, the court addressed the second ground of appeal concerning the multiple incidents count. It concluded that the prosecution's evidence was adequate to establish that the assaults occurred on at least eleven occasions, thereby justifying the multiple counts without requiring absolute precision in the frequency of the offences.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the legal framework surrounding indecent assaults, particularly in cases involving minors. By clarifying that penetration alone suffices to constitute an assault regardless of the presence of explicit force or coercion, the decision narrows the scope of defenses available in such cases. This has significant implications for future prosecutions, ensuring that the absence of force does not impede the classification of certain sexual acts as criminal offences when they involve minors.

Additionally, the affirmation of the multiple counts approach underscores the court's willingness to recognize repeated offences based on credible but not exhaustively detailed evidence. This aspect ensures that offenders are held accountable for persistent misconduct even when each individual act cannot be precisely quantified.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Assault vs. Battery

Assault involves causing someone to believe they are about to experience immediate unlawful force. It does not require physical contact. For example, threatening someone with a physical attack constitutes assault.

Battery, on the other hand, is the actual application of unlawful force to another person. This can range from a shove to more significant physical contact.

Indecent Assault under Section 14(1)

Under section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, an "indecent assault" specifically refers to a situation where an assault is accompanied by indecency. In the context of this case, it involves a minor being coerced into performing sexual acts, which qualifies as an assault even if there is no overt force.

No Case to Answer

A submission of "no case to answer" is a legal argument where the defense contends that the prosecution has insufficient evidence to proceed to a full trial. The judge must evaluate whether the evidence, if taken at its highest level, could lead a jury to a guilty verdict. If not, the case should be dismissed without proceeding to trial.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Price v EWCA Crim 463 serves as a pivotal clarification in the realm of sexual offence jurisprudence. By affirming that penetration constitutes an assault under section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 regardless of the presence of explicit force, the court has reinforced the protective measures afforded to minors under the law. This judgment not only upholds the convictions in the immediate case but also sets a precedent ensuring that similar offences are adequately addressed in future legal proceedings.

The meticulous analysis of prior cases and the nuanced distinction between assault and battery demonstrate the court's commitment to precise legal interpretation. Moreover, the judgment emphasizes the importance of clear and workable legal directions for juries, ensuring that justice is both served and seen to be served with clarity and certainty.