Churchill-Richards, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a renewed application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by a single judge. The applicant, aged 41 at the time of conviction, was convicted on 21 October 2020 at the Crown Court in Leicester of two counts of rape and two counts of supplying a psychoactive substance, and sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment. The complainants were two 13-year-old girls residing in a children's home. The applicant was acquitted of other related charges including rape of the second complainant, false imprisonment, and criminal damage.

The applicant initially sought appeal on the ground that the convictions for rape of one complainant were inconsistent with acquittals concerning the other complainant. He later sought to rely on substituted grounds, asserting contradictions in the complainants' evidence, prosecutorial investigative failures, and incorrect jury directions, though the core complaint remained the alleged inconsistency of verdicts.

The offences arose from events on 20 April 2020 when the applicant met the two girls in a park, engaged in drinking and use of nitrous oxide, and subsequently took them to his flat where sexual activity occurred. The applicant admitted to some sexual acts but denied certain charges, maintaining that all sexual activity was consensual and that he believed the girls were of legal age. The prosecution contended that some sexual encounters were non-consensual, supported by video evidence and witness testimony, including a neighbour who heard distress from the complainants.

The trial included pre-recorded evidence from the complainants and conventional jury directions. The jury convicted the applicant on the rape charges involving one complainant but acquitted him on charges involving the other complainant and related offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction.
2. Whether the convictions for rape of one complainant are inconsistent with the acquittals of rape of the other complainant.
3. Whether the convictions are unsafe or the trial was unfair, considering alleged contradictions in evidence, prosecutorial conduct, and jury directions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The convictions for rape of one complainant are inconsistent with the acquittals relating to the other complainant.
• The complainants' evidence was contradictory.
• The prosecution failed to investigate all avenues.
• The jury received incorrect legal directions.

Respondent's Arguments

• The verdicts are not inconsistent as the jury was entitled to assess each complainant's evidence separately.
• The legal directions given were conventional and correct.
• There was no failure in prosecutorial investigation.
• The convictions are safe and the trial fair.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on the central issue of whether the rape convictions were inconsistent with the acquittals on related counts. It emphasized the well-established principle that inconsistent verdicts require demonstration that no reasonable jury could have reached the differing conclusions. The court found that the jury was entitled and required to assess each complainant's evidence separately, considering their reliability and credibility individually. The acquittals on one complainant's counts indicated uncertainty about her evidence, whereas the convictions on the other complainant's counts indicated the jury was satisfied of non-consent and lack of reasonable belief in consent.

The court rejected the applicant's complaints about prosecutorial investigation and jury directions, finding no error or unfairness. It concluded that the evidence, including video footage and witness testimony, supported the jury’s verdicts. The court agreed with the single judge's earlier reasoning that this was not an "all or nothing" case and that the convictions were safe.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and consequently refused leave to appeal against conviction.

The direct effect is that the applicant's convictions and sentence remain upheld. No new precedent was established by this decision. The ruling reaffirms the established legal approach to assessing inconsistent verdicts and confirms the trial was conducted fairly and properly directed.