Factual and Procedural Background
On 31 May 2023, following a trial before HH Judge Sheridan DL and a jury at St Albans Crown Court, the Appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences including two counts of rape and one count of controlling/coercive behaviour. The offences related to a victim referred to as "C", who was groomed and sexually abused by the Appellant from approximately age 13 to 16, culminating in a full sexual relationship after she turned 16. The Appellant pleaded guilty to several other counts involving sexual activity with a child but denied coercive behaviour and contested whether the sexual activity after C’s sixteenth birthday was consensual.
At sentencing on 21 December 2023, the Appellant, aged 61, was found to be a dangerous offender and received an extended determinate sentence of 24 years, comprising 20 years custodial and 4 years extended licence, with concurrent sentences on other counts. The Appellant was granted leave to appeal conviction and sentence on 7 March 2025, and fresh legal representation was appointed. The appeal hearing was conducted with full compliance with court directions and submissions from both parties.
The factual background reveals that C was isolated due to her family’s religious beliefs and home schooling. The Appellant began grooming C when she was about 11 or 12, creating a manipulative "biblical fantasy" that fostered dependency. The sexual abuse escalated over three years, including coercion and exploitation, with C eventually moving in with the Appellant and entering a full sexual relationship. C later escaped the relationship, reported the Appellant, and evidence including thousands of messages and illicit images was presented at trial.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the judge erred in his direction regarding reasonable belief in consent, rendering the conviction unsafe.
- Whether the judge erred in leaving the case to the jury given the alleged absence of overt evidence of lack of consent.
- Whether the judge erred in his directions on the legal concept of consent.
- Whether the custodial sentence was manifestly excessive.
- Whether the judge was correct to find the Appellant a dangerous offender.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The judge’s directions on reasonable belief in consent were flawed, reversing the burden of proof and making the conviction unsafe.
- The judge should have withdrawn the rape counts from the jury at the close of the prosecution case due to lack of overt evidence of non-consent.
- The judge’s directions on consent improperly incorporated aspects of the prosecution’s case, potentially prejudicing the jury.
- The custodial sentence was manifestly excessive, with the harm category incorrectly elevated from category 2 to category 1.
- The judge erred in finding the Appellant a dangerous offender, and improperly discounted the pre-sentence report.
Respondent's Arguments
- The prosecution case included ample evidence of grooming and lack of consent beyond the victim’s statements, including extensive messages and guilty pleas to child sexual offences.
- The judge’s directions on consent were balanced, followed established case law, and correctly left the question of genuine consent to the jury.
- The route to verdict, while imperfect, did not mislead the jury or reverse the burden of proof; the jury’s note demonstrated their proper understanding of the issues.
- The finding of dangerousness was properly based on the totality of evidence, including the Appellant’s manipulative behaviour, lack of insight, and risk of serious harm.
- The custodial sentence was within a reasonable range given the gravity, duration, and multiplicity of offences.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Ali (Yasir Ifran) [2015] EWCA Crim 1270 |
Prosecution need not call overt evidence of non-consent where grooming may distort victim’s understanding; consent issues usually for jury. |
The court relied on Ali to confirm sufficient evidence of lack of consent existed and that grooming may cause acquiescence rather than genuine consent, justifying leaving the case to the jury. |
| R v Malone [1998] 2 Cr App R 447 |
Examples of evidence types that may indicate lack of consent depending on case circumstances. |
Referred to illustrate the variety of evidence that can support non-consent, reinforcing that grooming can mask true consent. |
| R v H [2007] EWCA Crim 2056 |
Consent questions generally for the jury; judge should only withdraw cases where evidence clearly indicates consent. |
Supported the principle that the jury should decide on consent unless evidence clearly shows proper consent. |
| R v Busharat [2024] EWCA Crim 1496 |
Similar principles regarding consent and grooming reaffirmed. |
Used to reinforce the approach to consent in grooming cases. |
| R v Oluboja [1981] 73 Cr App R 344 |
Guidance on legal directions regarding consent. |
The court considered whether the judge’s directions exceeded the guidance but concluded they were appropriate and balanced. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first addressed whether there was sufficient evidence of lack of consent. It held that the prosecution presented ample evidence beyond the complainant’s statements, including grooming conduct, text messages, and guilty pleas to related offences. The court relied on established case law confirming that grooming can impair genuine consent and that the jury should decide on consent unless evidence clearly indicates consent.
Regarding the judge's directions on consent, the court found them detailed but appropriate for the complexity of the case. Although the directions incorporated aspects of the prosecution case, they did not improperly direct the jury to accept any fact but rather identified legitimate factors for consideration. The court rejected the argument that the directions confused the ultimate question, clarifying that the issue was genuine consent rather than capacity to consent.
The court then considered the route to verdict concerning reasonable belief in consent. It acknowledged an error in the initial draft but noted the jury’s query and the corrected version clarified the legal standard. The court found that the directions, taken as a whole with other legal directions, did not reverse the burden of proof or mislead the jury. The jury’s note demonstrated their proper understanding, and the verdicts were safe.
On the appeal against sentence, the court analyzed the dangerous offender finding. It accepted the judge’s evaluation based on the totality of evidence, including the Appellant’s manipulative behaviour, lack of insight, and the risk of serious harm despite a medium risk of reconviction. The court upheld the judge’s discretion to discount aspects of the pre-sentence report and to find dangerousness.
The court further addressed the length of the custodial sentence. It found the judge’s categorization of harm and culpability appropriate given the multiple, prolonged, and serious offences, including exploitation and sexual abuse of a vulnerable victim. The sentence was not manifestly excessive and fell within a reasonable range.
Holding and Implications
The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
The court upheld the convictions on all grounds, affirming that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdicts and that the judge’s directions were legally sound. The dangerous offender finding and the extended sentence were also confirmed as appropriate and not excessive. The decision directly affects the parties by maintaining the Appellant’s convictions and sentence but does not establish any new legal precedent beyond applying established principles to the facts of this case.