R v Ciccarelli [2011]

Court: Court of Appeal

Facts: The defendant, Ciccarelli, and his girlfriend brought a friend, the victim (V), back to their apartment after a party. During the night, Ciccarelli sexually assaulted V while she was asleep. In his defence, Ciccarelli claimed that he believed V would consent based on a single advance she had made towards him earlier. The trial judge applied the evidential presumption in Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, deeming Ciccarelli's evidence insufficient to raise an issue regarding his reasonable belief in the victim's consent.

Issue: Whether Ciccarelli's evidence was sufficient to warrant consideration by the jury concerning his reasonable belief in V's consent.

Held: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Key Judicial Statements: Lord Judge CJ stated, “before the question of the appellant’s reasonable belief in the complainant’s consent could be left to the jury, some evidence beyond the fanciful or speculative had to be adduced to support the reasonableness of his belief.” He noted that Ciccarelli and V were effectively strangers and that Ciccarelli's belief was founded solely on a single advance made by V. Therefore, the judge was justified in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to raise an issue regarding reasonable belief in consent.

💡 Leveluplaw: underscores the necessity for realistic and substantive evidence when raising the issue of reasonable belief in consent under Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The ruling emphasizes the importance of maintaining a threshold for admissibility, ensuring that only evidence with a basis in reality is presented to the jury. This precedent reinforces the principle that mere speculation or minimal interactions do not suffice to establish a reasonable belief in consent.