R v Jerome Stephenson

On a fresh-evidence appeal, proof that a material prosecution witness lied does not automatically make a conviction unsafe. The appellate court must assess all the evidence and ask whether the fresh evidence realistically places the appellant’s guilt in reasonable doubt. Here, the complainant’s admissions materially changed the account of the circumstances in which the sexual activity began, including matters bearing on consent. Although she maintained that serious sexual offences had occurred, the altered account could have caused the jury to take a different view of consent. The conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed. No retrial was sought.

The appellant was convicted of rape at the Central Criminal Court in 2015 and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. An earlier appeal was dismissed in 2017: R v Stephenson [2017] EWCA Crim 338. Following a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the appellant relied on fresh evidence from the complainant, who admitted lying and making material omissions at trial. The prosecution did not oppose the appeal. The central issue was whether the fresh evidence rendered the conviction unsafe.

The court gave leave to adduce the fresh evidence and admitted it. It stressed that the decision whether a conviction is unsafe belongs to the court, not to the prosecution or the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The prosecution’s acceptance that it could no longer rely on the complainant assisted the court, but did not determine the appeal.

1. Governing approach. Applying the approach identified in Dial and Dottin v The State of Trinidad and Tobago [2005] UKPC 4 at [42], the court had to consider all the evidence and decide whether the fresh evidence realistically placed the appellant’s guilt in reasonable doubt. Even a clear lie by a central prosecution witness did not automatically require the conviction to be quashed.
2. Effect of the fresh evidence. The complainant accepted that her trial account had deliberately omitted or misstated material matters. Her new account described a party atmosphere, voluntary consumption of drugs and alcohol, sexualised behaviour, her involvement in putting on pornography, sitting on a man’s lap, and possible involvement in contacting an escort agency. These matters substantially altered the evidential picture presented to the jury.
3. Application. The complainant continued to allege that serious sexual offences had occurred and had not retracted those allegations. Nevertheless, the changed account of how the sexual activity began could have caused the jury to adopt a different approach to consent, which was the critical issue at trial. The conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed. No retrial was sought, so the proceedings concluded; the complainant’s anonymity remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 31 October 2025, allowed the appeal following a Criminal Cases Review Commission reference, admitted fresh evidence and quashed the conviction.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 9 February 2017, dismissed the earlier appeal: R v Stephenson [2017] EWCA Crim 338.
• Central Criminal Court: On 17 June 2015, convicted the appellant of rape and subsequently sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment.