K, R. v

A trial judge may leave a sexual allegation to the jury despite substantial inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence where the central allegation has remained consistent and independent evidence materially supports it. A different ruling on a co-accused’s no-case submission does not assist an appellant whose evidential position is materially different.

When sentencing a child for serious sexual offending, the court must give real weight to age and maturity. An appellate court may reduce a detention sentence where insufficient credit has been allowed for those matters, while recognising the gravity of the offending and its effect on the victim.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Bradford of rape of a child under 13 and assault of a child under 13 by penetration, contrary to sections 5 and 6(1) of the Sexual Offences Act. He was 14 when the offences occurred. The Recorder imposed four years’ detention in a young offender institution under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by the single judge, and appealed against sentence with leave. The conviction challenge contended that the complainant’s inconsistent and dishonest accounts made the evidence insufficient to leave to the jury, particularly because a co-accused had succeeded on a no-case submission. The sentencing challenge concerned the weight given to the appellant’s age and maturity.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The complainant’s evidence was open to serious criticism, but she had consistently alleged sexual assault and penetration. Her account was materially supported by the appellant’s DNA on her breast, blood in her knickers and injuries consistent with the prosecution case. The trial judge was therefore entitled to leave the evidence to the jury.
2. The successful no-case submission by the co-accused did not undermine that conclusion. The evidence concerning that defendant was materially different. The appellant’s case included independent supporting evidence in addition to the complainant’s testimony.
3. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The Recorder had properly recognised the seriousness of the offending, the impact on the complainant and the appellant’s youth. However, four years’ detention was a very long sentence for an offender who was 14 at the time. Greater credit should have been given to his age and lack of maturity. His earlier referral orders concerned materially different offending and did not justify withholding that additional credit.
4. The court substituted three years’ detention in a young offender institution for the four-year sentence imposed under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2014] EWCA Crim 2907, refused leave to appeal against conviction and allowed the appeal against sentence, substituting three years’ detention.
• Crown Court at Bradford — convicted the appellant of rape of a child under 13 and assault of a child under 13 by penetration, and imposed four years’ detention in a young offender institution.