R v ALD
[2023] EWCA Crim 967
R v Parrie Jacob
27 April 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 445
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape, but a new witness came forward with evidence that the sex was consensual and that the man ran away because he was scared, not guilty. The court believed the new witness and threw out the guilty verdict, ordering a new trial.
Key Facts
- •Parrie Jacob (A) was convicted of rape on 1 November 2021.
- •A's case was that the sexual intercourse was consensual.
- •A was sentenced to 7 years and 6 months imprisonment.
- •A's application for leave to appeal was initially refused.
- •New evidence emerged from Mr. Byron Parara, a security officer at the event.
- •Mr. Parara's evidence supported A's claim of consensual sex and his explanation for fleeing the scene.
- •Mr. Parara's evidence was deemed admissible, credible, and potentially supportive of the defense.
- •The incident occurred at a beer festival in a Portaloo toilet.
Legal Principles
Variation of Grounds of Appeal
Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, Rule 36.14 (3)-(5); R v James [2018] EWCA Crim 285
Receipt of Fresh Evidence
Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Appeal Against Conviction Based on Fresh Evidence
Section 2(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968; R v Pendleton [2001] UKHL 66; R v Ahmed [2010] EWCA Crim 2899; R v Barker [2021] EWCA Crim 603
Reporting Restrictions
Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981; Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Outcomes
Granted extension of time to vary grounds of appeal.
Sufficient explanation provided for delay; interests of justice served.
Granted leave to vary grounds of appeal.
Interests of justice served by considering new evidence.
Granted leave to adduce fresh evidence under s.23.
Evidence is capable of belief, may afford grounds for appeal, would have been admissible at trial, and there's a reasonable explanation for its late introduction.
Granted leave to appeal on the new ground.
Fresh evidence renders conviction arguably unsafe.
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
Fresh evidence causes doubt about the safety of the guilty verdict; there's a realistic prospect the jury would have reached a different conclusion with the fresh evidence.
Retrial ordered.
Interests of justice require a retrial.
Publication of proceedings postponed until after retrial.
To avoid substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice.