![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Begbie, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 289 (07 March 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/289.html Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 289 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT TEESSIDE
HIS HONOUR JUDGE CROWSON T20227081
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE STACEY
MR JUSTICE DEXTER DIAS
____________________
REGINA |
||
- v - |
||
LEE ASHLEY BEGBIE |
||
(1992 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act applies) |
____________________
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MRS JUSTICE STACEY:
- The principal evidence was from the complainant himself about the rapes, his knowledge of the applicant's house, furniture and layout, his whippet dogs, his wife and his Lotus vehicle.
- Secondly, the complainant's disclosure to his parents and younger brother some years earlier of what had happened to him.
- Thirdly, the applicant's previous convictions following guilty pleas in 2006 for sexually assaulting a 6-year-old boy.
- Fourthly, the inconsistencies in the applicant's two police interviews where he had initially denied knowing the complainant and then his inconsistent reasons why he could not have raped him.
- Fifthly, the applicant's failure to mention in his interview two matters that he relied on in court: the medical condition that he said would have prevented him from committing the offences and that the allegations were lies told at the direction of the Norfolk Police.
- Sixthly, the evidence of the applicant's wife called by the applicant in support of his case but which in one material respect supported the complainant's account that the downstairs wet room and shower was working at the relevant time. This was consistent with the complainant's evidence that he had had a shower at the applicant's suggestion after working on the Lotus, that the applicant had then followed him into the shower and this is where the first assault began. The applicant's evidence had been that this was a lie as the shower and wet room was not functioning at the time as it was not connected to the mains drainage so C could not have had a shower in it at the time.
- That the delay was evidence of the fact that the allegations were false and caused him prejudice.
- Secondly, medical evidence relating to his labyrinthitis and problems with painful ejaculation as evidence in support that he would not have committed the rapes.
- Thirdly, evidence relating to the drainage of the wet room not being connected to the mains at that time in rebuttal of the allegation about the incident in the shower.
- Fourthly, the evidence of his wife and friend in support of his case.
- First, that his first solicitor had left the firm he was working for and went to work for the Crown Prosecution Service, taking with him confidential information that could have benefited the prosecution's case.
- The second ground is that his counsel was negligent. Thirteen matters are said to be major inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence that were not challenged by the defence.
The inconsistencies, such as they were, were minor differences in some of the background evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. For example, whether it was the complainant's mother or his father who had driven the complainant home after his 21st birthday party when he was the worse for wear. Nothing turned on which parent it was who drove their son home. Another example is the complainant's mother's understanding that the applicant had worked at the model shop rather than being a frequent customer. Trial counsel has commented on both matters under the McCook procedure and explained why these were not strong points in the applicant's favour and why it would have been counterproductive to stress them before the jury at trial. For example, since the applicant accepted that he frequently went behind the counter in the model shop and would make tea, he could easily have been mistaken for an employee, thus corroborating the complainant's account of the applicant's presence in the shop with privileged status. The jury had all the points raised in this ground of appeal, as is evident from the judge's careful summing-up, which set out each of the points that might have helped his case that his counsel had diligently drawn to the jury's attention. Criticism of the conduct of his counsel is misplaced and has no merit.
- Grounds 3 and 4 are that the judge got it wrong. The first part of this overarching ground of appeal is that the judge's directions were wrong.
- The jury reached their verdict after 45 minutes.
- The second further point raised is that the jury appeared disinterested. They did not always appear to turn the pages in the bundle at the appropriate time.
- The applicant asserts that that there were medical records that were not before the jury that proved that he could not have committed the offences.