Ryan John Rostron [2019] EWCA Crim 1333

The applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of threatening to damage property, he was convicted of making a threat to kill, two counts of rape and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He renewed his application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal conviction.

The applicant and complainant were in a relationship, he sent messages to her threatening to burn her car, forced her into the boot of a car and threatened to kill her, assaulted her and insisted she suck his penis then raped her vaginally. Finally, the assault was by striking her with a metal bar during an argument causing a deep laceration to her finger. The defence case was that the allegations were malicious as she was jealous of his relationship with her sister.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence said to undermine the credibility of the complainant. The witness said he had spoken to the complainant who admitted making a false allegation of rape as the applicant had slept with her sister.

The proper approach to applications based on an alleged retraction of a complaint of rape was set out in R v V(S). It recommended obtaining a statement from a complainant as to the truth or otherwise of the alleged retraction and then hear from the fresh evidence witness. Then the court can decide whether it is necessary to put the complainant through another examination and cross-examination. That was the procedure followed in this case.

The evidence of the main witness to the apparent retraction was rejected for a number of reasons that are set out in the judgment. The Court declined to receive the fresh evidence and refused the renewed application for leave to appeal.