The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by G.P against his rape conviction, ruling that questions he sought to put to the complainant about her prior sexual history had no relevance on the facts of the case.
G.P was convicted on 18 April 2018 of raping R.B, an offence under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. He was sentenced to six years in prison, beginning on 14 July 2018. His appeal challenged the trial judge’s refusal to allow questioning under section 3 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981.
The prosecution evidence, as summarised in the judgment, was that R.B left a nightclub alone in the early hours of 5 November 2015. After she accepted a lift from G.P, she fell asleep in his van and awoke to find him standing over her, with his penis in her mouth. She shouted, ran to a nearby house and reported an assault. G.P admitted giving her a lift but said the sexual activity was consensual.
During the trial, after R.B’s evidence in chief and part of her cross-examination, the defence applied for leave to ask about a statement that she had oral sex with her boyfriend the previous weekend. The application also referred to a profile photograph posted eight days after the alleged offence and social-media comments that the defence said contained sexual innuendo. The defence argued the material was relevant to consent. The trial judge refused leave, citing the application’s timing and finding the proposed material did not meet the statutory test.
On appeal, G.P argued that the questions concerned consent rather than simply the complainant’s credibility or character. The prosecution responded that the application was late, the statement had long been available to the defence, and the proposed questioning was irrelevant and would not satisfy the statutory fairness test.
The Court of Appeal said the first question was whether the proposed evidence was relevant. It concluded that it could not see how the complainant’s consensual sexual activity with her boyfriend could have “the slightest relevance” on the facts. Since that threshold was not met, the court said it did not need to consider whether the statutory test for allowing the questioning was satisfied. It agreed that the defence had not satisfactorily explained the delay in applying.
The court dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not alter the conviction or sentence.