Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R v Edward Price

[2024] EWCA Crim 463
A man was convicted of forcing his teenage stepdaughter to perform oral sex on him. He appealed, arguing he didn't use force. The court said that even without obvious force, the act of penetration itself is enough to be considered assault, and his conviction was upheld.

Key Facts

  • Edward Price (appellant) was convicted of indecent assault (Counts 3 and 4) against his stepdaughter when she was 15.
  • The assaults involved the appellant asking the complainant to perform oral sex.
  • The appellant was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.
  • The appeal challenged the Judge's ruling that there was a case to answer, arguing there was no evidence of 'assault' as defined by the relevant case law.
  • The appellant did not give evidence.

Legal Principles

Every person's body is inviolate; any touching, however slight, may amount to a battery.

Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172

An indecent assault requires proof of an assault and indecent circumstances; consent is irrelevant if the victim is under 16.

Sexual Offences Act 1956, section 14(1) and (2)

A mere invitation to touch does not constitute an assault unless accompanied by compulsion or hostility.

Fairclough v Whipp (1951) 35 Cr App R 138; R v Burrows (1951) 35 Cr App R 180; DPP v Rogers (1953) 37 Cr App R 137; R v Dunn [2015] EWCA Crim 724

Penetration, even without substantial force, constitutes an assault by battery.

R v Brooks [2021] EWCA Crim 1468

The 12-month time limit for unlawful sexual intercourse cannot be circumvented by prosecuting as indecent assault.

R v J [2004] UKHL 42

In submissions of no case to answer, the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury if, on one possible view of the facts, there is evidence upon which a jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty.

R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The Court distinguished the precedent cases (Fairclough, Dunn) which involved touching initiated by the complainant, from the present case involving penetration by the appellant. The Court held that penetration of the complainant's mouth with the appellant's penis constituted a battery, regardless of the absence of ejaculation or overt force. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the offences occurred on at least 11 occasions.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.