R v Wade Terry King

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

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal out of time and for leave to appeal against conviction by the applicant, Wade King, who is now aged 21.

On 15 November 2023, following a trial in the Crown Court at Portsmouth before His Honour Judge Ashworth and a jury, the applicant was convicted of Rape, contrary to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

On 15 February 2024, the applicant was sentenced to seven years' detention. Consequential orders were made under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in relation to notification and also under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 Regulations.

The facts of this application may be shortly stated. On 11 March 2022 the complainant was with friends in Portsmouth city centre in a nightclub. They had been there for about three hours, drinking alcohol, before they decided to go to the applicant's home, where they arrived at approximately 3 am on 12 March 2022.

The complainant had been drinking alcohol, but was not drunk. After a while the group decided that they wanted to leave, to visit another friend. A taxi arrived outside the property. As the group were leaving, the applicant told them to shut the door. The complainant went back to do so. As she reached the door, the applicant grabbed her by the face and started to kiss her aggressively. He began to remove his clothes and those of the complainant, whilst she repeatedly told him to stop. The complainant was scared as the applicant removed her jeans and his own underwear and then raped her. He pulled her hair and had his hand on her throat.

The complainant described the rape as lasting for four or five minutes. The friends who were waiting in the taxi outside described that they had waited for ten minutes. One of the friends returned to the property, which caused the rape to stop.

The applicant told the complainant that he did not know why he had done it and that he was sorry. The complainant immediately told some of her friends and the police were informed.

The applicant attended the first hearing of the trial, at which the complainant was present; but it had been necessary to adjourn the trial when his counsel and solicitors withdrew due to professional embarrassment. The trial judge, whilst granting the adjournment, spoke directly to the applicant to inform him of the new trial date and the consequences if he failed to attend on that occasion.

On the new trial date, in November 2023, the applicant's new solicitors and counsel were present, but he did not attend court. All efforts to communicate with him failed. An application was made by the prosecution to continue with the trial in the absence of the applicant. Representations were made on behalf of the applicant by his counsel, but the judge granted the application. He gave reasons in a careful ruling. The jury were appropriately directed in relation to the absence of the applicant and in due course convicted him of the offence.

In the written proposed grounds of appeal against conviction, drafted by trial counsel, it is argued that the judge wrongly decided to continue with the trial, and, secondly, refused the defence application to exclude evidence of messaging by the applicant upon which the prosecution relied as being effectively admissions of the offence.

In response to the proposed grounds of appeal, the prosecution in their note argue that the judge correctly applied the principles appropriate to the decision to continue with the trial and to refuse the application to exclude the evidence of confession within the messaging.

In refusing the application to extend time and also for leave to appeal against conviction, the single judge stated that the trial judge had exercised a judicial discretion upon whether to continue with the trial or not and had applied the appropriate principles in exercising that discretion. No fault could be found with the decision. Also, the applicant had deliberately absented himself from the trial, the date for which he had been informed of directly by the judge at the previous trial. Further, the single judge stated that such medical evidence as existed did not arguably establish that the applicant was not in a state to provide a reliable confession. Had the applicant attended his trial, rather than deliberately absenting himself, he could have provided an explanation for the messages.

We have considered this renewed application for ourselves and have come to the same conclusion as the single judge. The proposed grounds of appeal are entirely without merit. The trial judge's rulings on both the issue of trial in the absence of the applicant and also for refusing to exclude the confession evidence are impeccable.

Accordingly, we refuse the renewed application to extend time and for leave to appeal against conviction.