Rex v Robert James Barnett – Court of Appeal – [2024] EWCA Crim 581 – Case Summary

Relevant for:

Criminal law practitioners, appellate lawyers, legal scholars

This case concerned an appeal by Robert James Barnett against his conviction for rape, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

TLDR:

• Robert James Barnett was convicted of rape in the Crown Court at Durham.
• He appealed against the conviction, arguing that evidence from a previous sexual assault conviction should not have been admitted.
• The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's directions to the jury.

On 16 January 2023, in the Crown Court at Durham, the applicant, Robert James Barnett, aged 58, was convicted of one offence of rape. His application for leave to appeal against conviction was initially refused by a single judge, prompting him to renew the application before the Court of Appeal.

The complainant was a 19-year-old woman and a neighbour of the applicant. On 19 September, there was a party at the complainant's home, which the applicant attended. The complainant became very drunk and fell asleep in the living room. At some point, the applicant took her to her bedroom. The prosecution argued that the applicant then undressed her, fondled her breasts, and raped her. The applicant contended that he only helped her upstairs and removed her clothing because she had vomited on them.

In the first trial, the applicant was found guilty of sexual assault for fondling the complainant's breasts, but the jury could not reach a verdict on the rape charge. A retrial was held, where the judge instructed the jury that the central issue was whether they were sure the applicant had penetrated the complainant's vagina with his penis.

The prosecution's case was based on the complainant's testimony that she woke up naked with the applicant on top of her, pinning her arms to the bed. She managed to push him off, put on her pyjamas, and run from the house. The prosecution also highlighted inconsistencies in the applicant's account and noted that he did not mention certain details during his police interview that he later relied upon in court.

The applicant argued that the admission of his previous sexual assault conviction was unfairly prejudicial. However, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was entitled to admit this evidence, as it was relevant to whether the applicant was a 'good Samaritan' or had a sexual interest in the complainant. The judge's directions to the jury were deemed appropriate and consistent with legal standards, including the application of section 74 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no error in the trial judge's directions and that the conviction was safe. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against the conviction was refused.

Legal representatives: Solicitors and barristers for both parties listed individually here

Judicial Panel: Lord Justice Lewis, Mr Justice Goss, Her Honour Judge Moreland

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Crim 581

undefined