ALJ, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was convicted on 22 January 2024 at the Crown Court at Mold before Judge Petts of multiple sexual offences involving a person referred to as "C", who was effectively his stepdaughter. The offences spanned from when C was aged 13 to 16 years old. The appellant was sentenced on 1 March 2024 to a total term of 7 years and 3 months' imprisonment for four counts of sexual assault and one count of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, with acquittal on one count of sexual assault. The appellant appealed against his conviction with leave of the Single Judge.

The factual background reveals that the appellant lived with C and her mother from 2018 until their relationship ended in April 2021. During this time, the appellant and C developed a close relationship, but C later disclosed that the appellant had sexually touched her multiple times between the ages of 13 and 15. The prosecution case was based on C’s evidence, supported by complaint evidence from her friends and family, describing grooming behaviour including befriending C, supplying drugs at her request, and forming an emotional bond.

The defence was a straightforward and absolute denial of any sexual touching or activity, denying all specific allegations and asserting that the appellant never engaged in any sexual conduct with C. The defence did not raise any alternative case such as consent or reasonable belief in consent.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge was required to sum up the element of consent in relation to the sexual assault charges.
2. Whether the failure to sum up consent rendered the appellant’s conviction unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant’s trial was unfair due to the failure of the judge to direct the jury on the element of consent, which is an essential element of the offence charged.
• Since the charges were sexual assault offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Crown was obliged to prove lack of consent, and this should have been explained to the jury in the summing-up.
• The appellant’s counsel relied on a statement from a legal compendium emphasizing the Crown's burden to prove non-consent in such offences.

Respondent's Arguments

• The summing-up appropriately focused on the real issues in dispute, and consent was not one of them as it was not raised by the defence.
• There was no evidential basis on which the jury could have found that C consented or that the appellant reasonably believed she consented.
• The appellant’s conduct constituted serious sexual abuse in breach of trust, and the jury’s verdict was supported by unchallenged evidence of grooming and non-consent.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that while some cases may require a judge to sum up an issue not raised by the parties, such as provocation in murder cases, the present case was different because consent was not in issue. The defence statement contained a clear and detailed factual denial of all sexual touching, without raising consent or reasonable belief in consent as a defence. The appellant did not put any alternative case to the complainant during cross-examination, nor did he suggest consent in his evidence.

The judge’s written directions correctly outlined the elements of the offence, including that the prosecution had to prove lack of consent. However, the judge did not give detailed directions on consent because the defence case was that no touching occurred at all. The judge also added a provision allowing the jury to request further directions on consent if needed, but the jury did not do so.

The court found that the appellant had the opportunity to raise consent as an issue but chose not to, and that the unchallenged evidence of the complainant supported the conclusion that there was no consent. Therefore, the judge was correct in treating consent as not being in issue, and the summing-up was fair and sufficient. The court rejected the appellant’s reliance on the compendium statement, explaining that the Crown must prove all elements that are in issue, but need not prove elements that are not contested.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the absence of detailed directions on consent did not render the conviction unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appellant's appeal against conviction.

The direct effect of this decision is that the appellant’s convictions and sentence stand. The court clarified that where an element of an offence, such as consent, is not put in issue by the defence, the judge is not obliged to provide detailed directions on that element. No new precedent was established, and the decision reinforces the principle that issues must be actively raised to require judicial direction.