R v Rana Simha Yellambai & Ors

Kidnapping by deception may be established where a person is induced to enter or remain in a vehicle by a false assurance that they will be taken home. The offence is continuing. A defendant who joins before the complainant escapes may be guilty if they are party to the continued detention against the complainant’s will.

A conviction for kidnapping is not irrational merely because the jury acquits, or cannot agree upon, associated sexual-offence counts. The counts may properly be considered separately where the evidence permits different conclusions on knowledge, encouragement or belief in consent.

The three applicants renewed applications for leave to appeal against convictions for kidnapping and sentences of ten years’ imprisonment. A single judge had refused leave.

Following a retrial at Leicester Crown Court before HHJ Brown, the applicants were convicted of kidnapping. The jury acquitted two applicants of sexual-assault counts and could not agree on several remaining sexual counts. The applicants contended that those outcomes were inconsistent with the kidnapping convictions. One applicant also challenged the refusal of a submission of no case to answer, and another criticised the summing-up.

The central issue was whether the convictions for kidnapping by deception were unsafe in light of the jury’s determinations on the sexual allegations.

1. The applications for leave to appeal against conviction were refused. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider kidnapping by deception. On the prosecution case, the complainant was assured that she would be taken home although that was not the applicants’ intention. Her initial entry into the car under a mistaken belief that it was a taxi did not prevent the jury from finding kidnapping.
2. Kidnapping is a continuing offence. If the jury were sure that at least one defendant had committed it, another could be convicted if he subsequently joined and was party to the complainant’s continued detention against her will. The question of each applicant’s role was properly for the jury.
3. The verdicts were not illogical or irrational. The judge had correctly directed the jury to consider each count and each defendant separately. The route to verdict also made the kidnapping count independent of the sexual counts. The jury could be sure that the complainant was taken against her will while retaining doubt about the sexual allegations, including whether those in the front of the car knew of or encouraged conduct in the back, or whether a defendant reasonably believed that she consented.
4. The sentencing judge’s finding that the kidnapping had a sexual motive, including an intention to rape which was not completed because the complainant escaped, was likewise consistent with the jury’s verdicts. The summing-up was fair and even-handed; the judge was not required to repeat counsel’s final submissions.
5. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted to all three applicants. The sentencing issues and the proper basis for sentencing were sufficiently difficult to warrant consideration by the full court, which might give further guidance on sentencing for this kind of kidnapping.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications after the single judge refused leave. The court refused leave to appeal against conviction and granted leave to appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 365.
• Crown Court at Leicester: Following a retrial before HHJ Brown, all three applicants were convicted of kidnapping on 11 September 2023 and each received ten years’ imprisonment. The jury acquitted two applicants of sexual-assault counts and did not agree on certain remaining sexual counts.