Key Facts
- •Jamie Rushton (applicant) pleaded guilty to sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
- •The offence involved the applicant assaulting a heavily intoxicated colleague at a work event.
- •Images and videos of the assault were found on the applicant's devices.
- •The applicant initially denied the offence, claiming consensual sex, but this was rejected at a Newton hearing.
- •The applicant received an 18-month prison sentence.
- •The applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal the sentence.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to prevent identification of victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
When considering an extension of time to appeal, the court assesses whether the appeal is arguable.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division practice
Sentencing guidelines consider factors such as the seriousness of the offence, remorse shown by the offender, and personal mitigation.
Sentencing Council guidelines
New grounds of appeal must be subject to an application to amend the notice of appeal (R v James [2018] 1 WLR 2749).
R v James [2018] 1 WLR 2749
A sexual harm prevention order's terms should not be disproportionate or inappropriate.
ECHR Article (implied)
Outcomes
The application for an extension of time to appeal was refused.
The Court of Appeal found the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit, largely agreeing with the single judge's assessment. New grounds were inadmissible without proper application to amend.
The 18-month prison sentence was upheld.
The judge's decision to impose an immediate custodial sentence was considered reasonable given the seriousness of the offence, the lack of remorse shown by the applicant, and the gross advantage taken of the intoxicated complainant.
The application to amend the grounds of appeal was refused.
The new grounds were not properly submitted in accordance with R v James.