Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of convictions for rape and assault causing harm imposed in the Central Criminal Court where the appellant and complainant were husband and wife, on the grounds that: a) the trial judge was entitled to refuse an application for a direction since a properly charged jury might take the view that a man who had very seriously assaulted a woman, caused her to fear for her life and threatened to rape her must in fact have known that she was not consenting to sexual intercourse or must, at the very least, have believed that it was possible that she was not consenting; b) the trial judge properly charged the jury in respect to the issue of recklessness; and c) even if the treatment of the issue of recklessness was suboptimal, it did not create any injustice.
Criminal law – appeal of convictions for rape and assault causing harm imposed in the Central Criminal Court – appellant and complainant were husband and wife – whether the judge erred in failing to accede to an application for a direction – whether the evidence was not such that the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse was non-consensual – whether the accused knew that the complainant, was not consenting or that he was reckless as to whether she was or was not consenting – issue of recklessness – s. 9 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 – it was indeed a proper case to be left to the jury – Criminal Law (Charleton, McDermott, Bolger, Criminal Law, 1st Ed., (Buttersworth Ireland Ltd, 1999) – trial judge's charge was adequate – appeal dismissed.