R v Logan Galbraith
[2024] EWCA Crim 1148
R v Marvin Hill
18 November 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1423
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape. He tried to use DNA evidence from another man found on the victim and her bruises to claim she consented, suggesting they were from someone else. The court said this evidence was too weak and didn't change the fact that he likely raped her. The conviction stood.
Key Facts
- •Marvin Hill (appellant) was convicted of rape.
- •The appeal concerned admissibility of evidence regarding the complainant's sexual history under s.41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
- •DNA evidence revealed semen from an unknown male in the complainant's vaginal swabs.
- •The complainant had bruising on her legs and thighs.
- •The appellant's defense was consensual anal intercourse, not vaginal intercourse.
- •The appellant sought to cross-examine the complainant about her sexual history to explain the DNA evidence and bruising.
Legal Principles
Restrictions on evidence of a complainant's sexual history in sexual offence trials are governed by s.41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s.41
Leave to admit such evidence can only be granted if it relates to a relevant issue and its refusal would render the verdict unsafe (s.41(2)(b)).
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s.41(2)(b)
Evidence adduced by the prosecution about the complainant's sexual behaviour can be rebutted or explained by the defence under s.41(5), but only to the extent necessary.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s.41(5)
Evidence of marginal relevance, even if technically admissible under s.41(5), will not be admitted if its exclusion would not render the verdict unsafe.
R. v. DB [2012] EWCA Crim 1235
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Court found that the evidence of the unknown male's DNA and the complainant's bruising were not sufficiently relevant to the issue of consent to vaginal intercourse to render the verdict unsafe. The evidence was deemed speculative and not probative on the central issue of whether the appellant had engaged in non-consensual vaginal intercourse.
Leave to appeal was refused on Ground 30(c) (relating to the DNA evidence).
The court found the DNA evidence did not rebut or explain the complainant's testimony regarding her lack of consent and was not relevant to the issue of whether she consented to anal intercourse.
The appeal was dismissed on Ground 30(d) (relating to the bruising).
The court found the evidence regarding the bruising was too speculative and that there was no causal link to the unknown male or any other person, and its exclusion did not render the verdict unsafe.