Ball, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 restriction on identifying the victim applies and remains in force in this matter.

In July 2022 the Defendant, a senior non-commissioned officer in Company A, and the Plaintiff, a junior non-commissioned officer, were accommodated in the same Base. In the early hours of 17 July 2022 the Plaintiff invited the Defendant and two others to her private single living accommodation (SLA). The Defendant was heavily intoxicated. Later that morning the Defendant entered the Plaintiff's room; the Plaintiff's account was that the Defendant forcibly removed her clothing, licked her genital area (charge 1) and then briefly penetrated her with his penis (charge 2). The Plaintiff immediately reported the events; a Service Police investigation followed.

On 20 October 2023, at the Military Court Centre, the Defendant was convicted on both charges. The Court Martial sentenced the Defendant to concurrent custodial terms of 3½ years (sexual assault) and 9 years (rape), the effective sentence being 9 years' imprisonment; the Defendant was also dismissed from Company A.

The Defendant sought leave to appeal convictions and sentences; leave was refused by the single judge and the applications were renewed orally before the Full Court Martial Appeal Court. The Full Court heard oral submissions on 27 March 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the convictions were unsafe because the judge advocate's summing up was unbalanced or unfair in ways that undermined key defence evidence (including treatment of evidence about noise/sound travel, medical evidence, deletion of mobile browsing history, and rhetorical questions posed to the Board).
2. Whether the sentence of 9 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive and should be varied, taking account of categorisation under the Sentencing Council guideline, aggravating and mitigating factors, and fresh evidence relevant to harm.
3. Whether fresh evidence relating to the Plaintiff's subsequent victimisation and the Army's post‑offence support should be admitted and given weight on sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The summing up contained numerous unbalanced observations that diminished the defence case and undermined key defence evidence, rendering the convictions unsafe (specific complaints: treatment of noise/sound travel evidence, presentation of medical evidence, handling of deleted browsing history, and rhetorical questioning favouring the prosecution).
• The sentence was excessive: the Board elevated the starting point and gave disproportionate weight to aggravating factors while undervaluing substantial personal mitigation (long, distinguished service; family impact; severe financial loss). The appropriate disposal would be a materially lower custodial term.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The trial was fair overall; the summing up properly left factual assessments to the Board and did not distort or render the convictions unsafe.
• There was no basis to reduce the sentence significantly; the categorisation and assessment of harm and culpability were open to the Board on the evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first addressed the safety challenge to conviction by assessing each complained-of aspect of the summing up against the trial record and the single judge's reasons.

On noise/sound travel: the Court acknowledged that evidence given by the Defendant about what could be heard in the Base was admissible and that an earlier objection to such evidence was erroneous. The judge advocate's expansive cautionary passage about scientific precision in noise evidence was possibly unhelpful but did not render the presentation unfair; the absence of any witnesses who recalled hearing shouting remained a legitimate defence point available to the Board.

On medical evidence: the medical evidence was neutral and the judge had earlier directed that; although the judge's later reminder of the Plaintiff's perception of injury did not repeat the prior neutral characterisation, the distinction between the Plaintiff's account and the medical evidence remained manifest and not unfairly presented.

On deleted browsing history: the judge's summing up identified the issue and left its weight to the Board. While some formulations might have tended to favour the prosecution, the judge repeatedly and clearly reminded the Board that factual evaluation was for them.

On rhetorical questions and other passages: some questions and observations could tend to favour the prosecution, but they were accompanied by explicit directions that factual determinations were for the Board and standard warnings against speculation; taken cumulatively the Court did not find unfairness sufficient to render convictions unsafe. The Full Court agreed with the single judge's conclusion that no arguable case of unfairness or unsafe conviction was made, and refused leave to appeal the convictions.

On sentence: the Court analysed the Board's application of the Sentencing Council guideline for rape. The Board categorised the rape as 2B (starting point 8 years, range 7–9) due to substantial evidence of severe psychological harm and treated service-related factors as aggravating (offence in victim's accommodation) but did not find use of rank to commit the offence. The Board increased the starting point to 8½ years and then to 9½ before reducing by mitigation to 9 years.

The Full Court considered fresh evidence about the Plaintiff's subsequent stalking and the Army's lack of post‑offence support and accepted that these factors had some causative effect on current harm. The Court concluded that increasing the starting point further risked double counting harm already encompassed by the guideline; it found the Board had given excessive weight to aggravation and undervalued the Defendant's personal mitigation (long, distinguished service; family harm; financial loss). The Court therefore held the sentence was manifestly excessive, granted leave to appeal against sentence, quashed the 9‑year sentence and substituted a term of 7½ years' imprisonment.

Holding and Implications

Conviction Appeal: The application for leave to appeal against the convictions was refused; the convictions were not disturbed.

Sentence Appeal: Leave to appeal against sentence was granted. The Court quashed the Crown Court/Board sentence of nine years' imprisonment and substituted a sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Defendant's convictions stand and the custodial term is reduced from nine years to seven and a half years. The Court did not purport to establish any new binding precedent; its reasoning explains application of the guideline in the particular factual and service‑context and demonstrates caution against double counting harm and the need to give proper weight to mitigation.