Court of Appeal: 1) dismisses appeal of rape conviction arising after the appellant was seen exiting the victim's caravan where the victim had assumed that the appellant was her husband, finding that the trial judge comprehensively and fairly explained the consent issue to the jury and in terms which would have left them in no doubt that consent to sexual activity with the complainant’s husband was not consent to such activity with the appellant; and 2) dismisses appeal of the severity of a sentence of eight years' imprisonment with the final year suspended imposed for rape, finding that the sentence was within the margin of discretion available to the sentencing judge in this case.
Criminal law – appeal of rape conviction – rape contrary to s. 48 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 as amended by s. 21 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 – whether the trial judge erred in law and in fact in charging the jury in relation to consent – trial judge comprehensively and fairly explained the consent issue to the jury and in terms which would have left them in no doubt that consent to sexual activity with the complainant’s husband was not consent to such activity with the appellant – sentencing – appeal against the severity of eight years' imprisonment with the final year suspended – whether insufficient credit was given for mitigation – sentence was within the margin of discretion available to the sentencing judge in this case – no error in principle – appeal dismissed.