Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R v Ryan Stevens

19 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1182
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of a sex crime, but the judge didn't explain the rules clearly enough to the jury. Because of this mistake, the court threw out the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Key Facts

  • Ryan Stevens was tried on three counts: two attempts to choke/strangle with intent (Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 21) and assault by penetration (Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 2).
  • He was acquitted on counts 1 and 2 but convicted on count 3 (assault by penetration).
  • The appeal focused on the judge's failure to properly direct the jury on considering counts separately and the need to be sure of the absence of consent or reasonable belief in consent for count 3.
  • The complainant (CB) and the appellant had a history of sexual encounters.
  • The central issue was whether the assault by penetration was consensual or if the appellant had a reasonable belief in consent.
  • The defense sought to introduce evidence of prior sexual activity under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
  • The jury sent a note expressing confusion about the instructions, particularly the connection between the choking and the assault by penetration.
  • The judge's response to the jury's note was deemed inadequate.

Legal Principles

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Restrictions on publishing information that could identify victims of sexual offences.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992

Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 21: Attempts to choke, suffocate or strangle with intent.

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 2: Assault by penetration.

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Section 41: Admissibility of evidence of prior sexual activity.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

The jury must consider each count separately and be sure of the absence of consent or the reasonable belief in consent for sexual offences.

Case Law Precedent (implied)

Outcomes

Appeal allowed; conviction on count 3 quashed.

The judge's directions to the jury were inadequate, failing to properly address the need to consider each count separately and the elements of consent/reasonable belief in consent for count 3. The Route to Verdict, combined with the judge's response to the jury's note, led to confusion and an unsafe conviction.

Retrial ordered on count 3.

The court determined that the conviction was unsafe due to flawed jury directions, necessitating a retrial to ensure a fair trial.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.