R v Lawrence Joshua Rafter

In a criminal appeal, the jury remain the tribunal of fact. The Court of Appeal must not conduct a second trial or substitute its assessment of credibility for theirs. Where disputed material was before the jury, was tested in cross-examination and was addressed in the summing-up, a renewed challenge will not establish an unsafe conviction without a material irregularity. A relatively short deliberation is assessed in context and does not, by itself, indicate jury pressure. On sentence, the appeal proceeds on the basis of the conviction; protestations of innocence and unsupported comparisons with other cases do not demonstrate error. A sentence imposed under the applicable guideline will stand unless wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Early-release provisions concern the consequences of sentence, not its determination.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook of rape, assault by penetration and sexual assault arising from a disputed sexual encounter. He received an extended determinate sentence of 14 years, comprising nine years’ custody and a five-year extended licence period.

After a single judge refused leave to appeal, the applicant renewed applications concerning the safety of the conviction and the sentence, and sought extensions of time. He relied on alleged investigative and disclosure failures, the absence of DNA evidence, telephone searches, the summing-up, jury deliberations, credibility issues, alleged sentencing bias, mitigation, comparative sentences and early-release provisions. The central questions were whether the conviction was unsafe or whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The court refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. It also refused the applications to extend time, since the merits did not justify further consideration.

1. Conviction. The court independently considered the trial and appeal materials and agreed with the single judge. The later-produced telephone bundle showed searches concerning infection risk with a condom, but the relevant searches had already been disclosed and placed before the jury. The issue whether the applicant removed the condom was central to the prosecution case, was explored in cross-examination, was addressed in the defence case and was fairly summarised by the trial judge.
2. The jury decided the competing factual accounts and credibility issues. Applying the principle in R v Pendleton [2001] UKHL 66, the Court of Appeal could not usurp the jury’s function by conducting a second trial. The period of deliberation raised no concern in the context of a five-day trial and narrow issues. No evidence demonstrated any irregularity affecting the safety of the conviction, and the conviction was not arguably unsafe.
3. Sentence. The court entirely agreed with the single judge’s reasons. The sentencing judge had acted in accordance with the applicable guideline, had considered the material relied on in mitigation and had a proper basis for treating the applicant as dangerous. There was no basis for alleging bias because the judge had also conducted the trial or because an appeal application had been made. The applicant’s previous convictions were relevant aggravating features. His protestations of innocence could not assist on a sentence appeal, which proceeded on the basis of the jury’s guilty verdict. Unsupported comparisons with sentences imposed in other cases did not demonstrate that the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
4. The challenge to early-release provisions concerned a consequence of sentence, not the determination of sentence, and was therefore irrelevant to the appeal.

The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and the applications to extend time, were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence and refused extensions of time. [2026] EWCA Crim 1225 .
• Single judge: Refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence on 8 October 2025.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook (Her Honour Judge Rosa Dean): Convicted the applicant of rape, assault by penetration and sexual assault and imposed an extended determinate sentence of 14 years, comprising nine years’ custody and a five-year extended licence period.