Keay, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted after a jury trial at the Crown Court at The City of two offences: controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship contrary to section 76(1) and (11) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (Count 1) and controlling prostitution for gain (Count 3). The verdicts were returned on 24 November 2025 before Judge Gioserano and the Appellant was sentenced immediately to a total term of 3 years' imprisonment. The Appellant's application for leave to appeal against conviction was referred to the full court by the Registrar.

The Count 1 particulars alleged repeated or continuous controlling/coercive behaviour between 1 October 2024 and 24 April 2025 while the Appellant was personally connected to the Complainant, consisting of: (1) physical violence (other than in Count 2), (2) verbal abuse, (3) taking the Complainant's bank card and spending her money, and (4) allowing other people to use her flat.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was sufficient evidence that the "serious alarm or distress" caused had a "substantial adverse effect on the complainant's day-to-day activities" (the statutory additional requirement in section 76(4)(b) of the Serious Crime Act 2015).
2. Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the Appellant's submission of no case to answer on Count 1.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Weir)

• Conceded evidence of repeated behaviour and serious alarm or distress but submitted there was no evidence of the required adverse effect on the Complainant's day-to-day activities, let alone that it was substantial.
• Submitted that there must be evidence of an adverse impact occurring contemporaneously with the conduct (not merely appreciated in hindsight).
• Relied on R v Tanner [2024] EWCA Crim 1576 (aggravated stalking case) as authority that proof of the additional requirement requires evidence of an adverse effect on day-to-day activities.

Prosecution's Arguments (Attorney Tollitt)

• Supported the trial judge's ruling: the judge was correct that no specific evidence of disruption to an established daily routine was required.
• Submitted the additional requirement can be satisfied in varied ways; vulnerable or chaotic lifestyles may lack an established routine but still suffer substantial adverse effect.
• Argued that the evidence in this case (loss of home, enforced sex work, loss of income and ongoing psychological effects) sufficed to prove a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The full court accepted the Registrar's referral question about the meaning of "substantial adverse effect on the complainant's day-to-day activities" and found there was little authority directly on point. The court analysed section 76(4)(b) as an alternative mode of proof to section 76(4)(a) and described the section 76(4)(b) element as the "additional requirement."

Key reasoning steps:

• The court preferred the prosecution's submissions and upheld the trial judge's rejection of the no-case submission.
• The court explained that, in controlling and coercive behaviour cases, the additional requirement will often be inherent in the proved conduct because control by its nature limits the victim's ability to choose how to live; therefore substantial impact on day-to-day activities commonly follows if the conduct is proved.
• The court held there is no statutory requirement for evidence of disruption to an established daily routine; vulnerable or chaotic lifestyles may lack routines but still suffer a substantial adverse effect.
• The court applied those principles to the evidence: the Complainant's testimony that she lost her home (homelessness and living rough), was caused to engage in sex work and had her income taken, and experienced lasting psychological effects, was open to the jury to accept and plainly satisfied the additional requirement.
• The court distinguished R v Tanner on its facts and did not consider Tanner directly relevant to controlling/coercive behaviour where ongoing control typically produces the required substantial effect.
• The court noted it was unnecessary on the facts to decide whether the adverse impact must be contemporaneous with the conduct or may be appreciated later.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION REFUSED

Holding: The application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused and the trial judge's ruling in rejecting the no-case submission on Count 1 was upheld.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the convictions and the sentence imposed at trial remain in force. The court articulated that, in controlling and coercive behaviour cases, the section 76(4)(b) additional requirement will frequently be satisfied by evidence showing control, exploitation and their concrete consequences (for example loss of home and income), and that no specific proof of disruption to an established daily routine is required. The court distinguished R v Tanner on its facts. The court did not decide the separate question whether recognition of the adverse impact must occur contemporaneously with the conduct.