White, R. v, Court of Appeal - Criminal Division, June 15, 2010,  EWCA Crim 1929
|Resolution Date:||June 15, 2010|
|Issuing Organization:||Criminal Division|
|Actores:||White, R. v|
Neutral Citation Number:  EWCA Crim 1929
Case No. 2009/06292/C4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Date: Tuesday 15 June 2010
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE GOLDRING
MR JUSTICE WILKIE
HIS HONOUR JUDGE LORAINE-SMITH
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
R E G I N A
- v -
Computer Aided Transcription by
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
165 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone 020 7404 1400; Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Miss A Ginn appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr G Perrins appeared on behalf of the Crown
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE GOLDRING:
On 29 October 2009, in the Crown Court at Peterborough, the appellant was convicted of assault by penetration contrary to section 2(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He was subsequently sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Having been convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, he was required to comply with the provisions of Part 2 of the Act (notification to the police) for ten years. He was also disqualified indefinitely from working with children. That part of the sentence, it is agreed by both prosecution and defence, was inappropriate in the circumstances.
The appellant appeals against both conviction and sentence by leave of the single judge.
On 30 April 2008 the appellant took some intimate photographs of the complainant on his mobile telephone. One image showed the complainant's vagina being penetrated by two of his fingers. On 20 November 2008 he sent the photographs via a text message to the complainant. By then he had transferred the images from his original mobile phone to another one.
It was the prosecution's case, and the complainant's evidence, that in 2008 there was no sexual relationship between the two of them, although there had been. It had ended initially in 2005, had resumed in 2007, and had ended it was said, in late 2007. The complainant said that until she received the images she knew nothing about them. She did not consent to the photographs being taken. To her knowledge no photographs were taken. She did not consent to the digital penetration depicted. The photographs must have been taken when she was asleep. Two of the images depicted a condom. In cross-examination the complainant agreed that the images could...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL