Wight, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was tried at the Crown Court at The City before Judge Clemitson and, on 8 December 2023, was convicted of Rape (count 4) and of Engaging in Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship (count 8), and acquitted on other sexual offence counts. The complainant in the proceedings is referred to as the Plaintiff. The Prosecution case relied principally on the evidence of the Plaintiff and supporting evidence from members of her family describing controlling and bullying behaviour by the Appellant over a relationship of more than 20 years, including an allegation of anal rape. The Appellant denied the offences, gave evidence, and maintained sexual activity was consensual. A witness described as Expert Beadle gave evidence diagnosing the Plaintiff with autism; during re‑examination the witness mistakenly suggested there was information of abuse in the relationship. Defence counsel applied to discharge the jury on that basis; the trial judge instructed the jury that the witness was wrong and the trial continued. On 20 September 2024 the Appellant received an extended determinate sentence comprising a 12‑year custodial term with an 8‑year extended licence for rape and a concurrent 4‑year determinate term for coercive control, plus a 3‑year consecutive term for other matters arising on two related indictments. The Appellant sought leave to appeal conviction and sentence; Single Judges refused leave on earlier applications. This opinion records renewal of those applications and an application to amend to add a new ground based on fresh messages found after trial.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge should have discharged the jury after Expert Beadle's mistaken remark about a record of abuse.
2. Whether the rape conviction is unsafe because it is inconsistent with acquittals on other sexual offence counts.
3. Whether the custodial term for rape was excessive.
4. Whether the extended licence period was manifestly excessive.
5. Whether fresh text messages discovered after trial (purported admissions by the Plaintiff of lying) constitute fresh evidence rendering the rape conviction unsafe and justify granting leave to appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The jury should have been discharged after Expert Beadle's incorrect statement about records indicating abuse, as the remark could not be put out of jurors' minds.
• The rape conviction is unsafe because it is inconsistent with acquittals on other sexual offence counts (this ground was not pursued at the hearing).
• The custodial term and extended licence were excessive given mitigating factors including remorse and the Appellant's mental disorder.
• Newly discovered text messages from the Plaintiff to the Appellant in October 2021, containing apologies for repeated lying, are fresh evidence that would have been highly significant at trial and render the rape conviction unsafe.

Respondent's (Prosecution) Arguments

• The trial judge appropriately addressed the mistaken comment by directing the jury that the witness was wrong and noting the safeguarding records did not suggest sexual assault at the time; discharge was unnecessary.
• Differing verdicts do not demonstrate that the rape conviction is unsafe; juries may accept parts of evidence and reject others.
• The sentencing judge was in the best position after trial to assess harm and culpability, correctly applied the Sentencing Council Guideline (category 2A and culpability A), and properly addressed dangerousness and totality in imposing an extended determinate sentence.
• There may be explanations for the post‑trial messages that are unconnected to the Plaintiff's account at trial; issues of admissibility and context warrant fuller examination by the Full Court.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the renewed conviction grounds and the sentence grounds against the Single Judges' prior refusals. On the discharge point, the court concluded that the trial judge's remedial direction — informing the jury that Expert Beadle was wrong and that safeguarding records did not indicate sexual assault — removed any basis to believe the jury would have been influenced by the mistaken remark. On the consistency point, the court applied the high threshold for treating differing verdicts as rendering a conviction unsafe, observing that juries are entitled to accept some parts of a witness's account and reject others; the Appellant did not pursue that ground at the hearing. Regarding sentence, the court found the trial judge was best placed to assess the offence after a contested trial; she properly categorised harm and culpability under the Sentencing Council Guideline, took into account the Appellant's very bad record and other offending on bail, and lawfully applied totality by imposing concurrent and consecutive elements as appropriate. The court gave particular weight to the judge's assessment of dangerousness when upholding the extended licence period. On the newly advanced ground based on post‑trial text messages, the court recognised potentially significant evidential and admissibility questions that required fuller examination and therefore referred that single ground to the Full Court, granting leave to amend and ordering procedural steps (production of witness statements, attendance, timing for evidence, and a one‑day estimate for the hearing) to enable the Full Court to consider whether the fresh material should be admitted and whether leave to appeal should be granted.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and against sentence on the original grounds.

The court granted leave to amend to add a single new ground based on fresh text messages and referred that ground to the Full Court for hearing on (a) whether to admit the fresh evidence and (b) whether to grant leave to appeal. The court ordered procedural steps including production of specified statements and evidence and directed that the respondent attend the Full Court hearing. The direct effect is that the original renewed applications remain dismissed, while one new ground will be examined by the Full Court; no broader precedent was declared beyond the court's procedural and evidential determinations in this case.