R v Ashley Lewis

Evidence of voyeurism committed during the same outing as alleged sexual offending may be treated as part of the facts of the alleged offence and may be admissible to prove a propensity for sexual gratification through non-consensual violation. Its admission remains subject to fairness and appropriate jury directions.

Joinder, severance and cross-admissibility are discretionary. An appellate court will not interfere where there was a sufficient nexus between the alleged offences and the trial judge gave adequate directions. An autism spectrum disorder diagnosis may carry limited mitigating weight where no clear link to culpability is established and the offending had planned and predatory features.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Lewes Crown Court to two voyeurism offences arising from conduct in Brighton. He was later convicted after trial of rape, two sexual assaults, theft and assault by beating arising from incidents in Brighton and London. He received an extended determinate sentence of 16 years and 6 months for rape, together with concurrent sentences on the remaining offences.

Following the single judge's refusal, the applicant renewed applications for substantial extensions of time and for leave to appeal conviction and sentence. He challenged the admission of the voyeurism evidence, the joinder and cross-admissibility of the Brighton and London allegations, and the weight given to his autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in sentencing.

1. The renewed applications for extensions of time and for leave to appeal conviction and sentence were refused. The court considered the merits despite the lengthy delay, acknowledging the reported difficulty in obtaining funds for legal advice.

2. The trial judge was entitled to admit the voyeurism offences. They occurred during the same outing as the alleged Brighton rape and could properly be assessed as part of the facts of that alleged offence under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 98. They were also capable of establishing a relevant propensity under section 101(1)(d): although voyeurism does not involve sexual physical contact, it demonstrated a sexual preoccupation and the targeting and violation of young women without consent. The fairness decision was discretionary, and appropriate limiting directions were given.

3. The judge was entitled to permit joinder and not to sever the London and Brighton counts. There was a sufficient nexus notwithstanding their factual differences, including their different settings, seriousness and timing. The later allegation involved the sexualised targeting of another 17-year-old in a public place. Trial counsel did not renew the severance application and, after the cross-admissibility ruling, did not challenge the jury directions. The Court of Appeal found no reason why the trial judge should have adopted a different course.

4. The judge's directions on bad character and cross-admissibility were adequate. They addressed complex evidential issues and the limitations on the use of the evidence.

5. The sentence was severe but not manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had considered the psychological report and treated the autism spectrum disorder diagnosis as mitigation. He was entitled to give it limited weight because the report identified no clear connection with culpability for the rape and sexual assaults, and because of the planned and predatory aspects of the offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the renewed applications, refused extensions of time and leave to appeal conviction and sentence: [2024] EWCA Crim 1639.

• Single judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused leave to appeal conviction and sentence.

• Crown Court at Lewes: The applicant pleaded guilty to two voyeurism counts, was convicted after trial of rape, sexual assault, theft and assault by beating, and was sentenced on 10 February 2023.