The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against conviction by a man identified in the judgment as OM, upholding his convictions on rape, sexual assault and threatening to kill or cause serious harm charges.
OM was convicted by a jury in July 2022. The convictions comprised four counts of rape, two counts of sexual assault and two counts of threatening to kill or cause serious harm. He received an effective nine-year prison sentence in October 2022, backdated to the date he entered custody. The appeal concerned the convictions, and the Court of Appeal dismissed it on 12 December 2024.
The charges arose from events on 2 August 2019 involving OM’s former partner, with whom he had two adult sons. The judgment says the couple had separated but continued living together. It records that the woman told the court OM threatened her with secateurs, pushed her into a bedroom, raped and sexually assaulted her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Those are matters recounted in the judgment’s account of the trial evidence.
OM accepted in interviews that sexual intercourse and other sexual acts had occurred, but said the woman consented or that he genuinely believed she had consented. His sons also gave evidence for the defence about matters including locks on their mother’s bedroom door and her drinking habits. The judgment describes these matters as relevant to her credibility.
The appeal raised two issues: whether the trial judge’s correction of an initial direction about the woman’s demeanour when she complained to one of her sons placed too much emphasis on recent complaint and demeanour, and whether the judge should have summarised the defence evidence for the jury.
The Court of Appeal said the trial judge had made a slight error by initially treating demeanour as part of recent-complaint evidence. It held that the judge corrected the error properly, and that the re-direction was not improper or unfair.
On the second ground, the court found that the judge had clearly explained the defence of consent and mistaken belief. The trial lasted two days, and the evidence had recently been heard. The judge told jurors to ask for a reminder if they could not clearly recall evidence. The appeal court held that, in the circumstances, he was entitled to leave the evidence summary to counsel and did not need to revisit the sons’ evidence or the woman’s testimony. It dismissed both grounds and the appeal against conviction.