R v Ryan Stevens
[2023] EWCA Crim 1182
R v Rhys Davenport
27 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1084
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexual assault. The victim later said she hadn't told the whole story in court. The court decided the victim's mistake didn't mean the man was wrongly convicted because the main evidence against him was still strong. The appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Rhys Davenport was convicted of sexual assault and assault by penetration.
- •The victim, C, provided a statement after the trial alleging she had attempted to strangle Davenport but hadn't disclosed this earlier due to fear and language barriers.
- •Davenport appealed his conviction, arguing C's post-trial statement showed she had lied during cross-examination, rendering the conviction unsafe.
- •The Court of Appeal considered whether C's answer in cross-examination was a deliberate lie and whether the new evidence warranted overturning the conviction.
Legal Principles
Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 allows for the admission of fresh evidence.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968
A conviction is unsafe if fresh evidence shows that the jury's verdict was unreliable.
Case law (implied)
The assessment of witness credibility is a matter for the jury.
Case law (implied)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The court found C's answer in cross-examination, while unclear, was not a deliberate lie. The fresh evidence, while meeting the criteria of section 23, did not render the conviction unsafe. The court emphasized the context of the cross-examination and the overall strength of the prosecution's case.