R v Lee Ashley Begbie

The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during the person's lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as a victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act .

The matter comes before the court on an oral renewal application for leave to appeal against conviction and an extension of time of 14 days in which to do so, following refusal by the single judge.

On 30 May 2024 in the Crown Court at Teesside before His Honour Judge Crowson, the applicant (who was then aged 71) was convicted of three counts of rape committed in 2004 and sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 19 years. The explanation for the delay in lodging the appeal was the disruption caused by his being moved from Durham to Northumberland Prison and the time it took for his solicitors to forward the appeal form for him to complete himself as a litigant in person.

The original grounds of appeal were received on 11 July 2024, followed by further grounds on 2 August 2024 and 5 August 2024, citing inconsistencies in the evidence. Further submissions and letters have been received both before and after receipt of the Respondent's Notice and the single judge's decision, all of which have been considered carefully but which largely repeat the initial grounds.

The facts are as follows. In 2019 the complainant, whom we shall refer to as C, disclosed to the police that he had been sexually abused by the applicant when he was a child. During his achieving best evidence interview on 30 May 2019, he said he had been raped by the applicant (then called Lee Dennison) three or four times over a three of four-month period in 2004 when he was aged 15. He described how he had met the applicant in the model aircraft shop that the complainant frequently went to after school and he was then invited to the applicant's house. The applicant invited him ostensibly because C had expressed an interest in cars, in order that he could look at and work on the applicant's Lotus. The applicant subsequently raped the complainant at his house on that occasion (count 1) and on at least two other occasions (counts 2 and 3). The complainant described the layout of the house where the rapes had taken place and the furniture in the rooms.

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.

The applicant gave evidence in his defence. His case was that there was no sexual contact between him and the complainant. The case was part of a deliberate campaign against him by Norfolk Police and that the allegations were false. The complainant and the other prosecution witnesses had been persuaded to tell lies in order to support the police's campaign against him. He had indeed met the complainant at the model shop but he denied giving him a lift in his car, and although he did have a Lotus vehicle, it was in 2008 and not 2004. The complainant had never been to his house, but he accepted that he had been to the complainant's parents' house and that he had gone on the complainant's family outing to the Go Ape amusement park in Thetford.

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.

The simple issue for the jury was whether the complainant was raped as alleged by the complainant what facts they could be sure of.

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.

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 criticism is misplaced however as the judge gave the standard approved directions to the jury to avoid stereotypes and common misconceptions in alleged sexual offences case. Nor can the judge be criticised for reminding the jury of the passage of time and how it might affect both sides. The offences were committed 21 years earlier than the date of trial and the judge was entitled to remind the jury that at the time the complainant described himself as a naive 15-year-old interested in model aeroplanes. The judge's directions were in accordance with the Crown Court Compendium guidance to judges.

The second part of the criticism of the judge in ground 4 is of the judge's summary of the evidence as being biased and unfair. This ground too has no merit. The summary of the evidence was fair and balanced and faithfully summarised the evidence that had been given. The applicant's wife had indeed given evidence that the downstairs shower room was working in 2004 even though it had not yet been fully connected to the mains drainage which corroborated the complainant's account and the judge was entitled to summarise that part of the evidence for the jury. In effect this ground of appeal would have required the judge to ignore the evidence unfavourable to the applicant and only summarise the points that he considered were to his advantage.

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.

He is mistaken on both aspects. His trial counsel has confirmed that the documents were indeed put before the jury and fully presented in his evidence, as is apparent from the applicant's own grounds of appeal. However, the difficulty for the applicant is that the evidence did not prove that he could not have committed the rapes. The document that recorded that the applicant had had a surgery to his urethra under anaesthetic and that he reported extreme pain with erections and on ejaculation is not determinative of his physical ability to commit the offences.

We have considered each of the points raised by the applicant in his many letters to the court. None of them, whether taken separately or together, give rise to any arguable grounds that the convictions were unsafe. There was strong prosecution evidence on which the properly directed jury could be sure of the applicant's guilt on each of the three counts of rape.

Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.