Rawle, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, on appeal from a conviction at the Crown Court. The Appellant was convicted after a trial before a judge and jury on 22 March 2024 of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years and 153 days (effectively 16 years less time on remand). The factual matrix (as found by the prosecution at trial) was that on 21 August 2022 the Appellant fatally stabbed the Victim in the back while he was pushing a wheelbarrow; the parties were elderly spouses married since 1995. The prosecution relied on evidence of a relationship involving regular arguments and, in particular, tension over the potential sale of land. The Defence advanced self‑defence and, in the alternative, issues of lack of intent to cause really serious harm, loss of control, and diminished responsibility. The Appellant did not give live evidence but relied on prior interview accounts and called witnesses and experts in support of the mental‑health and coercive‑control aspects of her case. A renewed application for leave to appeal was brought following refusal by a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in excluding proposed expert evidence on coercive control and related concepts.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit disclosed medical records of the Victim to undermine a prosecution witness' account.
3. Whether the prosecution relied on prejudicial myths or stereotypes about domestic abuse so as to render the trial unfair.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial court should have admitted expert evidence from a criminologist on coercive control, violent resistance, victim responses, and related matters to assist the jury and guard against myths.
• The trial court should have allowed the defence to adduce the Victim's medical notes (disclosed during trial) which, it was submitted, would undermine a prosecution witness' account of the Victim's character and mental health.
• The prosecution's opening, cross‑examination and closing submissions contained references amounting to myths and stereotypes about domestic abuse, prejudicing the fairness of the trial.
• In letters to the court the Appellant also complained of witness dishonesty, that she was unwell at trial, and that she was not properly represented.

Prosecution's Case and Responses

• The prosecution's factual case was that the Appellant stabbed the Victim during a dispute; it called witnesses including family, friends, work colleagues and a former partner of the Victim to describe the relationship and the Victim's temperament.
• The prosecution relied on psychiatric and psychological evidence that, although the Appellant suffered mental health conditions, those conditions did not support the defence of diminished responsibility.
• The prosecution indicated the need to avoid gender stereotyping and warned the jury accordingly; no contemporaneous objection was taken to parts of opening submissions relied on by the Appellant.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered each ground in turn and applied evidentiary and relevance principles as follows.

• Ground 1 (expert evidence on coercive control): The trial judge (Judge Parker) excluded the proposed generic criminological evidence on the basis that it risked inviting the jury to generalise from other cases and to assess conduct in the light of conduct in other cases rather than the evidence specific to this trial. The court agreed that the jury could assess the issues from the evidence and their life experience, that a careful direction on myths had been given in summing up, and that generic, unfocused opinion evidence was inadmissible. The court noted the Appellant had called a clinical psychologist who gave evidence on these matters at trial.
• Ground 2 (Victim's medical records): The trial judge excluded the disclosed psychiatric records from 1981 because they did not contradict the relevant witness' evidence that the Victim had not been controlling or violent towards her; the records showed stress but no psychiatric diagnosis and were remote in time. The Court of Appeal concluded exclusion was proper as the material was irrelevant to the issues the jury had to decide and recalling the witness was unnecessary.
• Ground 3 (prosecutorial reliance on myths/stereotypes): The court accepted the single judge's view that no challenge had been made to the trial judge's summing up, which expressly directed the jury on myths and stereotypes. Any unobjected‑to remarks in opening could not be shown to have had a significant effect on fairness or the safety of the verdict.
• Additional points (representation, witness credibility, health): The Appellant waived legal professional privilege; the material disclosed by former counsel did not support a claim of inadequate representation. The court noted the defence team had procured medical assessment of fitness to stand trial (a report dated 24 February 2024) which found no cognitive defect and stability of mood. The court concluded none of the additional complaints raised in the Appellant's letters amounted to an arguable ground of appeal.

Holding and Implications

REFUSED

Holding: The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The court concluded there was no arguable basis that the conviction was unsafe or that the trial was unfair.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant's request for leave to appeal against conviction is denied and the conviction and sentence remain in force. The opinion does not purport to establish any new legal principle or precedent.