R v Rhys Davenport
[2024] EWCA Crim 1084
R v Jordan Thomas Campbell
7 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 159
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape and strangulation. He appealed, using an email from the victim that seemed to help his case. But the victim said she was pressured into writing that email. The court didn't believe the email and threw out the appeal. A separate argument about other evidence was also rejected because it was already presented in court.
Key Facts
- •Jordan Thomas Campbell was convicted of strangulation and rape after a trial in February 2023.
- •He received an extended sentence of 15 years (9 years custody, 6 years extended license for rape, 2 years concurrent for strangulation).
- •Campbell's appeal is based on a post-trial email from the complainant which he claims is exculpatory.
- •The complainant subsequently gave a statement retracting the email, stating she was manipulated by Campbell.
- •Campbell also challenges the judge's application of section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, restricting cross-examination on the complainant's prior sexual history.
Legal Principles
The court can receive evidence not adduced at trial if it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice (section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23(2)
Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 restricts the admissibility of evidence relating to a complainant's previous sexual history.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, section 41
The court must consider whether the new evidence is credible, could support an appeal, is admissible, and has a reasonable explanation for not being presented at trial.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23(2) (implied)
Outcomes
The appeal was refused.
The court found the complainant's post-trial email was unreliable due to her subsequent retraction and explanation of manipulation. The court also found that the evidence regarding prior instances of makeup sex, as referenced under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, was already presented during the trial. Therefore, no arguable grounds for appeal existed.