R v DCB
[2024] EWCA Crim 554
PRP v R
4 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1150
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually abusing his sister years ago. He appealed, arguing the judge shouldn't have ignored evidence of his sister's later abuse by her husband and that he (the appellant) was too young to understand his actions. The court said the husband's abuse was irrelevant and that even though he was young, the evidence still showed he understood he was doing wrong. His sentence was slightly reduced because the judge had overstated the impact of his abuse on his sister.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (47) convicted of 4 counts of indecent assault and 3 counts of rape against his 44-year-old sister.
- •Offences occurred between 1991 and 1996 when the complainant was aged 11-16.
- •Appellant appealed conviction on grounds of wrongly excluded evidence and failure to give a doli incapax direction.
- •Appellant appealed sentence as manifestly excessive.
- •Complainant also suffered abuse from her husband and mother.
- •Appellant attended a special school due to dyslexia and exhibited self-harming behavior.
Legal Principles
Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 restricts evidence or questions about a complainant's sexual history.
YJCEA 1999
In sexual offence cases, evidence is admissible under section 41 if it relates to a relevant issue and its exclusion would render the conclusion unsafe.
R v A (No.2) [2001] UKHL 25
The presumption of doli incapax (incapable of evil) for children aged 10-14 was abolished on 30 September 1998 by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Common Law, Crime and Disorder Act 1998
In cases involving historical offending where the defendant was a minor, sentencing should consider the maximum sentences available at the time of the offences.
Sentencing Guidelines, Children and Young Persons Act 1993
Psychiatric harm can be apportioned between causes.
Barber v Somerset [2002] EWCA Civ 76
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
The judge's exclusion of evidence about the complainant's husband's abuse was correct as it was not relevant to any issue in the trial and its admission might have perpetuated myths about consent and credibility.
Appeal against sentence allowed in part.
The 18-year sentence was reduced to 16 years to reflect the judge's attribution of all psychological harm to the appellant and the appellant's immaturity. The judge incorrectly attributed all harm to the appellant and insufficiently accounted for the appellant's immaturity.