Peter Paul Zeberian Green v R

For offending governed by the Sexual Offences Act 1956, rape required proof that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant knew of, or was reckless as to, that absence. A genuine but unreasonable belief in consent remained a defence. Applying the later Sexual Offences Act 2003 test may therefore make a conviction unsafe where the evidence could support such a belief.

There is no universal requirement for cross-admissibility or separate bad-character directions. Sufficiency depends on the facts, the parties’ cases and the risk of evidential misuse. Omission of the usual warning about judicial comments does not itself make a conviction unsafe. A restraining order on acquittal requires necessity to protect a person from harassment.

Following a jury trial at Lincoln Crown Court, Peter Paul Zeberian Green was convicted of two rapes, two attempted rapes and four indecent assaults arising from alleged offending after September 1992. He was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment with a one-year extended licence period.

The Court of Appeal considered applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal, followed by the appeal itself. The grounds concerned the consent direction, cross-admissibility and bad-character directions, and the judge’s failure to tell the jury to disregard comments with which they disagreed. The central issues were whether the convictions were unsafe and, if so, whether a retrial should be ordered.

1. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal because fresh counsel had identified an agreed legal error and it was in the interests of justice to do so.
2. Under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the prosecution had to prove absence of consent and that the defendant knew of, or was reckless as to, that absence. A genuine but unreasonable belief in consent remained a defence, as confirmed by DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182. The trial judge had instead directed the jury using the Sexual Offences Act 2003 test. Since the evidence could support a genuine but unreasonable belief in consent, the court could not be sure that the convictions on counts 1 and 2 were safe. Those convictions were quashed.
3. There is no general requirement for a cross-admissibility direction in every case. Whether one is required depends on the facts, the directions given and the risk that evidence concerning one complainant will be misused as propensity or cross-admissible evidence. The approach in R v Freeman [2008] EWCA Crim 1863; [2009] 1 WLR 2723, R v H [2011] EWCA Crim 2344; [2012] 1 Cr App R.30, R v Adams [2019] EWCA Crim 1363; [2020] Crim LR 69-71, and R v AHC [2022] EWCA Crim 925 was considered. Here, the standard direction to consider each count separately was sufficient. The convictions on counts 3 to 8 were unaffected by the quashing of counts 1 and 2.
4. Evidence of Mr Green’s behaviour had been admitted by agreement under section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Some evidence also concerned the facts of the offences for section 98 purposes, applying the approach in R v MA [2019] EWCA Crim 178. Because the evidence formed part of the respective cases of the parties, separate bad-character directions were unnecessary in these circumstances. The need for such directions is more acute where the evidence is admitted or proved independently of the parties.
5. The judge should have directed the jury to disregard comments with which they disagreed. Applying the safety test identified in Bernard v The State of Trinidad and Tobago [2007] UKPC 34; [2007] 2 Cr App R 22, the omission did not make the trial unfair or the convictions on counts 3 to 8 unsafe.
6. The court ordered no retrial on counts 1 and 2. The sentences on those counts were set aside. The sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment with a one-year extended licence period on count 4, with concurrent sentences on counts 3 and 5 to 8, remained. No restraining order was made and the matter was not remitted under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, because necessity to protect C1 from harassment had not been shown.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2025] EWCA Crim 923: extension of time and leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed in part. Convictions on counts 1 and 2 were quashed without retrial. Convictions on counts 3 to 8 remained safe.
• Lincoln Crown Court — Jury convictions on 7 April 2022; on 6 July 2022 the appellant was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment with a one-year extended licence period.