Scott, R. v

Partiality towards a witness does not necessarily make a conviction unsafe. The court must assess whether a fair-minded and informed observer would regard the partiality as capable of causing the jury to accept the witness’s evidence and, if so, whether it may have affected the outcome. The evidence as a whole and the verdict pattern are relevant. In sentence appeals, the focus is on totality and whether the overall sentence is manifestly excessive, rather than on the precise allocation of offences between guideline categories. Repeated serious offending against several victims may justify a term of 20 years or more even where the description campaign of rape is inexact.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull, the applicant was convicted of nine rapes and one attempted rape committed against six women. He received an extended determinate sentence of 28 years, comprising 20 years’ imprisonment and an eight-year extended licence period.

He sought extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal against one conviction and against sentence. The conviction application relied on fresh evidence concerning post-verdict contact between one complainant and a juror, raising apparent bias. The sentence application challenged the categorisation of the offences under the rape sentencing guideline and the length of the licence period.

All applications refused. The court declined to receive the proposed fresh evidence and refused extensions of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

1. Under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the question whether fresh evidence should be received was interlinked with the safety of the conviction. Section 23(2)(b) required consideration of whether the evidence appeared capable of affording a ground for allowing the appeal.
2. Adopting the approach in R v Khan [2008] 2 Cr App R(S) 13, the court held that partiality towards a witness does not necessarily amount to apparent bias. The questions were whether a fair-minded observer would consider that the partiality may have caused the jury to accept the witness’s evidence and, if so, whether it may have affected the trial’s outcome.
3. The evidence established contact between the complainant and juror only after the verdicts. The complainant and juror denied earlier contact, and nothing in their messages contradicted that account. The unanimous acquittals on two other counts involving the same complainant, together with the convictions involving other complainants, indicated that the jury had assessed the evidence count by count. Neither question in the Khan test was satisfied. The conviction was not unsafe.
4. As to sentence, the court accepted that most, if not all, offences might have fallen within category 3B rather than category 2B. However, the proper focus was totality. Successive rapes over many years, increasing in frequency and involving six victims, justified substantial aggravation above guideline starting points. The phrase campaign of rape was not an exact description, but it was not the only basis on which offending could warrant a sentence of 20 years or more. A total custodial term of 20 years was stiff but not manifestly excessive.
5. A victim personal statement may provide a sufficient basis for finding severe psychological harm, as recognised in R v Chall [2019] EWCA Crim 865, but most statements in this case did not establish that level of harm.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Considered referrals of applications for extensions of time to seek leave to appeal against one conviction and sentence. Fresh evidence was not received and all applications were refused.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull: After trial before Mr Recorder Nolan QC and a jury, the applicant was convicted of nine rapes and one attempted rape and sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 28 years.