R v Stuart Allen Gray

In a grooming-based rape case, the prosecution need not produce an express refusal by the complainant. Evidence that grooming, exploitation and dependency may have turned apparent compliance into acquiescence can be sufficient to leave lack of consent to the jury. Consent remains agreement by choice, with freedom and capacity to choose; grooming does not automatically negate it.

A judge may give detailed, balanced assistance on matters bearing on genuine consent, provided the ultimate decision remains with the jury. A route to verdict need not reproduce specimen wording, but it must respect the prosecution burden. An imperfect route can still yield safe convictions where the directions as a whole and the jury’s response show no misunderstanding.

Dangerousness is assessed by the court under the Sentencing Act 2022, section 308. Future risk may be inferred from the offending and other evidence, and is not determined by a probation officer’s view alone.

Following a jury trial at St Albans Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of two rapes and controlling or coercive behaviour, having pleaded guilty to numerous other offences. He received an extended determinate sentence of 24 years, including 20 years’ custody.

Leave to appeal was granted on 7 March 2025. The conviction appeal concerned the sufficiency of evidence of lack of consent, the directions on consent, and the directions on reasonable belief in consent. The sentence appeal challenged the finding of dangerousness and the length of the custodial term. The central questions were whether the convictions were safe, whether the statutory dangerousness test was correctly applied, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

1. Consent and sufficiency of evidence. In a grooming case, the prosecution need not rely on an express statement by the complainant that she did not consent. Grooming may limit or distort a vulnerable person’s appreciation of the relationship, so apparent compliance may mask acquiescence rather than genuine agreement. The court applied the principles in R v Ali (Yasir Ifran) [2015] EWCA Crim 1270 and followed the approach in R v H [2007] EWCA Crim 2056, namely that consent will ordinarily be for the jury unless the evidence clearly indicates that proper consent was given. There was ample evidence of grooming and also direct evidence of lack of consent.
2. Jury directions on consent. Consent required agreement by choice, with freedom and capacity to make that choice. The case concerned freedom to choose, not incapacity. The judge was entitled to identify factual matters which, if accepted, might bear on genuine consent, including grooming and dependency. Although the directions were repetitive and imperfectly structured, they were balanced and left the ultimate issue to the jury.
3. Reasonable belief in consent. The route to verdict was sub-optimal, but its questions preserved the possibility that the appellant may have believed in consent and made reasonableness an objective question. The general directions on burden and standard of proof, the legal directions on rape, and the jury’s request for clarification showed that the jury had not been led into error. Trial judges should scrutinise routes to verdict carefully and allow counsel sufficient time to digest draft directions.
4. Dangerousness. Under the Sentencing Act 2022, section 308, the question was whether the appellant posed a significant risk to the public of serious harm through further specified offences. The judge was entitled to assess that risk from the nature and circumstances of the offending, the appellant’s lack of insight and empathy, and the factors driving his behaviour. Dangerousness is for the court. A probation officer’s assessment is assistance, not determination, and the judge could reasonably place little weight on the report.
5. Sentence. The number and duration of the rapes, the victim’s vulnerability, and the wider offending justified treating the offending as particularly grave. The judge properly selected a lead count, reflected the totality through concurrent sentences, and imposed 20 years’ custody. That term was within the range reasonably open to the judge and was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed. Judgment [2025] EWCA Crim 1042.
• St Albans Crown Court: The appellant was convicted after trial on 31 May 2023 and sentenced on 21 December 2023 to an extended determinate sentence of 24 years.