Key Facts
- •Appellant (BJS) convicted of three counts of rape and one count of assault of a child under 13 by penetration.
- •Sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment with a one-year extended licence period.
- •Appeal against conviction based on the judge's decision to give a Watson direction to the jury.
- •Jury deliberated for approximately 10 hours before receiving the Watson direction.
- •The judge received a jury note indicating difficulty reaching a verdict, but not an inability to do so.
- •Appellant's counsel did not strongly contest the giving of the Watson direction.
- •The case involved allegations of sexual abuse by a stepfather against his stepdaughter.
- •The case was a retrial.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: prohibits publication of information identifying victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Watson direction: should only be given after a majority direction, significant deliberation time, and usually only as a last resort; judge should consider inviting submissions from counsel.
R v Watson [2023] EWCA Crim 1016, R v Logo [2015] 2 Cr.App.R 17, R v Arthur [2013] EWCA Crim 1852, R v Malcolm [2014] EWCA Crim 2508
There is no 'exceptionality' test for giving a Watson direction; the decision is at the judge's discretion, to be exercised reasonably.
R v Logo [2015] 2 Cr.App.R 17
In serious cases like rape, avoiding retrial may be a relevant consideration in deciding whether to give a Watson direction, provided no undue pressure is placed on the jury.
R v Logo [2015] 2 Cr.App.R 17
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's decision to give a Watson direction was within the bounds of his discretion. The judge followed established legal principles, and the appellant's counsel did not effectively oppose the direction.