Regina v David Taylor

Where a vulnerable or immature complainant is alleged to have been groomed for sexual exploitation, an assertion of consent is weighty but is not necessarily decisive. The question of true consent will usually be for the jury unless the evidence clearly establishes proper consent. The jury must make a full appraisal of the circumstances, including dependency, vulnerability, authority and whether apparent agreement was acquiescence. “Grooming” is not a term of art. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to apply that label before a jury may find that there was no genuine consent.

The appellant, a teacher and deputy head at a boarding school, was convicted of historic sexual offences against children in his care. He appealed his conviction for rape, charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

The complainant, referred to as C, said that the sexual intercourse had been consensual and that she had not said no. The prosecution case was that her apparent consent was not genuine because she was vulnerable, dependent on the school and subject to the appellant’s abuse of authority and grooming.

The trial judge rejected a submission of no case to answer and left the issue of consent to the jury. The appeal challenged that ruling and contended that the conviction might be unsafe because no lesser alternative verdict was available.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The trial judge correctly left the rape count to the jury. In cases involving an allegedly groomed vulnerable or immature complainant, the question whether there was real consent will ordinarily be for the jury unless the evidence clearly indicates proper consent.

2. The court respectfully adopted the principles in R v Ali (Yasir) [2015] EWCA Crim 1279. A prosecution need not call overt evidence that the complainant did not consent where the circumstances may have limited or distorted the complainant’s understanding of the sexual activity. Apparent compliance may conceal an absence of true consent.

3. C’s assertion that she had consented was important evidence, but it had to be assessed with all the surrounding evidence. The jury could consider her vulnerability, her residence at the school, the appellant’s position of trust and age, the development of the sexual conduct, and evidence bearing on a process by which she might have perceived acquiescence as consent.

4. Following the explanation in R v Robinson [2011] EWCA Crim 916, the court held that “grooming” is not a term of art. The ruling on a submission of no case to answer does not turn on whether conduct can be assigned that label. The decisive question is whether the prosecution evidence as a whole could properly permit the jury to conclude that there was no genuine consent. On these facts, it could.

5. There was no basis for finding the conviction unsafe because the jury had no lesser alternative verdict. Jurors could be expected to follow the directions given and to acquit unless satisfied of every ingredient of rape.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2022] EWCA Crim 1207, dismissed the appeal against the rape conviction.
• Trial court — rejected a submission of no case to answer on the rape count and the jury convicted the appellant. The court and citation are not stated in the judgment.