Mathieson, R v

On a submission of no case to answer in an attempted rape prosecution, the judge must determine whether the evidence is capable of enabling a jury to infer both the requisite intent and conduct going beyond mere preparation. Evidence of restraint, the complainant being forced to the ground, conduct directed at her clothing, and the offender’s actions immediately afterwards may properly support those inferences.

A summing-up is assessed as a whole. An overemphatic passage does not establish judicial bias where the directions remain fair and balanced and the jury is told that it alone decides the case.

The applicant was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of attempted rape and sentenced to four years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution. His application for leave to appeal conviction was refused by a single judge.

On his renewed application, he contended that the trial judge should have stopped the case because there was insufficient evidence of an intention to rape or of acts beyond mere preparation. He also alleged that passages in the summing-up displayed bias and prejudice against him.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the trial judge had correctly left the attempted rape allegation to the jury and whether the summing-up, read fairly and as a whole, was unfair.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal conviction was dismissed. Neither ground was arguable.

2. The trial judge had applied the correct no-case-to-answer approach. The issue was whether there was evidence upon which a jury could infer both an intention to rape and conduct going beyond mere preparation. There plainly was such evidence.

3. The complainant’s account described the applicant forcing her to the ground, getting on top of her, restraining her, putting his hands under her skirt and tearing at her tights. The biological material matching the applicant was recovered from the area of the tear. His conduct when running away, including pulling up his tracksuit bottoms, was also highly relevant. Taken together, that evidence entitled the jury to consider the requisite intent and the attempt element.

4. The Court rejected the complaint about the summing-up. Some emphasis used by the judge may have disclosed his view more clearly than it should have done. However, the identified passages were questions which the jury might ask themselves. The judge had directed the jury that it must decide the case and disregard any judicial view with which it disagreed.

5. Read as a whole, the summing-up and directions were fair, balanced and appropriate. They properly identified the issues and did not demonstrate prejudice or bias.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal conviction was dismissed: [2018] EWCA Crim 717.

2. Court of Appeal (single judge): The initial application for leave to appeal conviction was refused.

3. Crown Court at Snaresbrook: The applicant was convicted of attempted rape and sentenced to four years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution.