JA, R. v

Evidence of prior domestic violence may properly provide relevant relationship background where the defence asserts that the parties’ relationship was harmonious. Its admission will not render a conviction unsafe where the judge directs the jury correctly and the evidence does not distract from the real issues of consent and reasonable belief in consent.

A conviction remains safe where the complainant’s account is strongly corroborated by injuries and other physical evidence, and the defendant cannot provide a credible alternative explanation. A substantial sentence for a separate serious offence does not offend the totality principle merely because the offender is already serving an earlier sentence for unrelated offending.

The applicant was convicted at the Inner London Crown Court of rape of his former partner and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The prosecution case was that he assaulted and strangled the complainant before raping her, in the presence of their young child in an adjoining room.

The trial judge admitted evidence of alleged previous domestic violence. The applicant renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence. He contended that the background evidence was prejudicial, that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that it infringed totality because he was serving a sentence for an unrelated handling offence.

1. The renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused. The conviction was safe.
2. The evidence of previous domestic violence was properly admitted. The applicant’s case was that the relationship had remained harmonious until the day of the offence. Evidence bearing on the true background was therefore relevant. The trial judge gave correct and helpful directions on the limited use of that evidence and focused the jury on consent and the applicant’s knowledge or reasonable belief as to consent.
3. The court also held that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The complainant’s injuries, including injuries consistent with strangulation, and her torn clothing supported her account. The applicant did not provide an explanation capable of accounting for the force used against her. The admission of the background evidence could not make the conviction unsafe.
4. The eight-year sentence was fully justified. The rape involved sustained personal violence, deliberate cruelty, threats and a serious traumatic impact. The aggravating features placed it at least at the top of the lowest adult-rape sentencing category and arguably in the next category.
5. Totality did not require a reduction. The applicant’s existing sentence was for a wholly separate offence. Its existence did not render the sentence for this rape arguably excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence refused: [2013] EWCA Crim 2408.
• Inner London Crown Court: The applicant was convicted of rape on 6 December 2012 and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.