R v BEA

The appellant, BEA, appealed against his convictions and sentence. He was convicted of two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, three counts of common assault, and 13 counts of rape against a single complainant. The prosecution case was based on the complainant's uncorroborated evidence, which the appellant argued was inconsistent and improbable. He submitted that the trial judge should have warned the jury about the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated evidence. The appellant also argued that the delay in reporting the offences and the complainant's mental health issues should have warranted a warning to the jury about potential unreliability of her evidence. He further alleged a miscarriage of justice due to certain comments made by defence counsel during cross-examination and the admission of evidence about the appellant's prior imprisonment. Finally, the appellant argued that his 11-year sentence was manifestly excessive compared to sentences given to other offenders with similar but less severe crimes.

The court held that the complainant's evidence was not improbable or incredible, and no warning was necessary on that basis. The court found that the trial judge properly directed the jury to consider inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and assess her credibility. The court concluded that the inconsistencies did not render the verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court found no miscarriage of justice in the comments made by defence counsel or the admission of evidence about the appellant's prior imprisonment. Finally, the court found that the appellant's extensive criminal history and the protracted and controlling nature of his offending justified the trial judge's sentence. The comparison to other cases did not indicate that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.