RAPE

[2018] EWCA Crim 538 [2018] EWCA Crim 538

Evidence of a step-father’s controlling behaviour towards his wife and step-son had been relevant evidence at his trial for 16 sexual offences against his step-daughter, as his defence was that his step-daughter was lying and exaggerating his controlling behaviour and the evidence was relevant to the issue of her credibility. A total sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

[2018] EWCA Crim 438 [2018] EWCA Crim 438

Given the aggravating factors involved in the sexual assault and subsequent rape of the same victim, a judge had been entitled to set the minimum term of a life sentence at over twice the upper limit of the respective sentencing guideline range. However, the sentence was too high and was reduced from nine-and-a-half to eight-and-a-half years.

[2018] EWCA Crim 318 [2018] EWCA Crim 318

The court stated the principles to be applied in sentencing cases where a serious medical condition meant that a lesser sentence should be imposed on an offender than would otherwise be appropriate. In cases of serious ill health, the appeal court might, in rare cases, take account of medical evidence obtained after sentencing which showed a significant deterioration in a medical condition, even when the condition had been known at the date of sentencing. A terminal prognosis should be taken into account in assessing whether imprisonment weighed so much more heavily on an appellant than it did on other prisoners that the sentence length had to be exceptionally reduced.

[2018] EWHC 210 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 210 (Admin)

Due to a fugitive offender’s mental health needs and the risk of suicide if he were extradited, and in the context of an increased prison population in Turkey following an attempted coup and the lack of available healthcare, extradition to Turkey would breach the individual’s ECHR art.3 rights.

[2017] EWCA Crim 2214 [2017] EWCA Crim 2214

A conviction for rape was found to be unsafe where the prosecution had relied on an edited and misleading series of Facebook exchanges between the complainant and appellant. The case centred on consent and turned on credibility, and Facebook messages which had been deleted by the complainant but obtained after the trial undermined her version of events and supported that of the appellant.