The Court of Appeal has dismissed SR’s appeal against his conviction for rape, upholding the conviction and leaving the original sentence in place: eight years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended on terms and conditions.
SR was convicted by majority verdict on 1 December 2023 of one count of rape under section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, as amended. The appeal judgment was delivered on 12 November 2024 by Ms Justice Tara Burns.
At trial, SR accepted that non-consensual sexual intercourse had occurred but relied on a defence of automatism, arguing that he had sexomnia. His proposed sleep expert, Dr John Garvey, told the jury that SR had the condition and that it was highly likely to have been operating at the time. The Court of Appeal noted that parts of the history SR gave Dr Garvey had no evidential basis at trial because SR did not give evidence. The trial judge had allowed the prosecution to draw the jury’s attention to unsupported material relied on by the expert.
The appeal court found that the prosecution’s comments about SR’s police interview amounted to a technical breach of the Criminal Justice (Evidence) Act 1924. It held that the trial judge’s directions adequately addressed the matter and that the breach did not require the jury to be discharged or make the trial unfair. The court found no breach of SR’s right to silence in the prosecution’s discussion of material SR had given to Dr Garvey.
The court also upheld the trial judge’s decision to prevent Dr Garvey from presenting another expert’s opinion as his own, while allowing him to explain that he had considered that expert’s test findings. It found that evidence from a mutual acquaintance, JC, about SR being “very handsy” with the victim on a night out in December 2017 was relevant to the defence evidence and the jury’s assessment of the expert opinion.
The remaining grounds concerned permission for the victim and another prosecution witness to testify by video link from New Zealand and Australia, and the judge’s response to a jury question about intoxication. The appeal court found no error in either decision. It concluded that none of the five grounds succeeded and dismissed the appeal against conviction.