Reeves, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion, delivered by Judge Popplewell, concerns an appeal by the Appellant against convictions arising from a Crown Court trial at The City in 2013 before Judge Davis and a jury. The Appellant was convicted on eight counts of historical sexual abuse alleged by three complainants, referred to here as Complainant 1, Complainant 2 and Complainant 3, who are entitled to lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The counts charged indecent assault contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and were particularised by reference to periods reflecting the complainants' ages. Complainant 1 and Complainant 2 are twins born 17 September 1988; Complainant 3 was born 2 August 1990. Complaints were first made to the complainants' mother in early 2011. The Appellant's defence at trial was denial and an assertion of collusive fabrication; the Appellant gave evidence. The Registrar referred to the full court the Appellant's application for a lengthy extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction. The court granted the extension and granted leave to appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, in relation to alleged offending by a person under 14 occurring before 30 September 1998, the presumption of doli incapax required both evidential proof of guilty knowledge and an appropriate jury direction, and whether failure to address doli incapax at trial renders convictions unsafe.
2. Whether convictions charging offending during periods when the Appellant was aged under 14 (or partly under 14) must be quashed for absence of a doli incapax direction, and whether any such quashing affects convictions for counts alleging offending when the Appellant was aged 14 or over.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Attorney O'Raghallaigh submitted that convictions on counts where the Appellant was under 14 for the entire indictment period (and counts where she was 13 for part of the period) were unsafe because no doli incapax direction was given.
• In written grounds, it was submitted that convictions on counts alleging offending when the Appellant was 14 or over (counts 3 and 7) were tainted by the unsafety of the other convictions and therefore also unsafe; Attorney O'Raghallaigh abandoned pursuing that aspect before the court.

Respondent's Arguments

• Attorney Trefgarne accepted that there should have been a doli incapax direction in respect of counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and that there was no evidence before the jury which could have rebutted the presumption of doli incapax; he did not argue those convictions were safe.
• The Crown maintained that convictions on counts 3 and 7 (alleging conduct when the Appellant was aged 14 or over) were unaffected and safe.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the longstanding common-law rule of doli incapax, noting it was prospectively abolished from 30 September 1998 by section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 but continues to apply to conduct before that date. The court restated the principle that, for alleged offences by persons under 14 before that date, the prosecution must prove actus reus and mens rea and also that the defendant knew the conduct was seriously wrong; mere proof of the act is insufficient. The authorities cited were relied upon to demonstrate these requirements.

The court found that at the 2013 trial no one addressed doli incapax and no direction was given to the jury on that issue; this omission was only discovered in 2023 when new solicitors reviewed the case. The Registrar referred the Appellant's application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal; the court granted the extension and granted leave.

Attorney Trefgarne for the Crown properly accepted that there should have been a doli incapax direction in respect of counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and that there was no evidence before the jury to rebut the presumption; accordingly he did not contend those convictions were safe. The court considered whether convictions on counts 3 and 7 (alleging offending when the Appellant was aged 14–15) were affected. The court explained that doli incapax has no bearing on guilt for offences committed at age 14 or over, where only actus reus and mens rea are required. On cross-admissibility, the court reasoned that if the jury were satisfied the conduct occurred on the earlier occasions (as their verdicts indicate), that factual finding would be probative of conduct on the later dates; doli incapax is logically irrelevant to such probative cross-admissibility.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the appeal in part and quashed convictions on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8. The court refused to quash convictions on counts 3 and 7, which alleged conduct when the Appellant was aged 14 or over, and those convictions therefore stand. The Crown confirmed that no retrial is sought on the quashed convictions. The decision directly affects the parties by overturning the specified convictions; the opinion does not purport to establish any new principle beyond application of established doli incapax authorities.