R v Ardit Cela
[2024] EWCA Crim 1396
R v ALD
27 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 967
Court of Appeal
A judge stopped a rape trial because she didn't believe the victim. A higher court said the judge made mistakes and that a jury should have decided, so they ordered a new trial with a different judge.
Key Facts
- •Respondent charged with rape of complainant, 'C', on June 23, 2020.
- •C and respondent met online; intercourse occurred at respondent's house during their first meeting.
- •Trial issue was consent; C's evidence consistent across ABE interview and cross-examination.
- •C messaged friends expressing discomfort before and during the encounter, also took a self-photograph and answered a call.
- •C reported the rape to friends and police shortly after the event.
- •C's ex-boyfriend received inconsistent messages from C and refused to give a witness statement, but provided messages as evidence.
- •Judge extensively questioned C in front of the jury, subsequently suggesting the prosecution reconsider the case.
- •Defense submitted a 'no case to answer', arguing C's evidence was undermined by inconsistencies.
- •Judge terminated the case, ruling C's evidence was 'out of all reason'.
- •Appeal argued judge erred in law and/or acted unreasonably, relying on respondent's self-serving statement and neglecting other evidence.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Judge cannot consider a wholly self-serving statement in considering a submission of no case to answer.
Pearce (1979) 69 Cr. App. R 365
Constitutional primacy of the jury to assess the weight of evidence.
Outcomes
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed.
Judge erred in law by considering the respondent's self-serving statement and relying on her own experience and expectations of rape complainant behavior when assessing the evidence. The judge's actions were unreasonable.
Ruling overturned; retrial ordered before a different judge.
The judge's assessment of the evidence was flawed due to reliance on inadmissible factors and a failure to properly consider all of the prosecution's evidence. The jury should have been allowed to assess the evidence.