R v Roberts (Hugh)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 15 January 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] EWCA Crim J0115-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 3825/B/81 |
| Date | 15 January 1982 |
[1982] EWCA Crim J0115-5
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)
Mr. Justice Skinner
and
Mr. Justice Leonard
No. 3825/B/81
No. 3975/C/81
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. L. JONES appeared on behalf of the Appellant Hugh Arfon Roberts.
MR. M. FARMER appeared on behalf of the Appellant Thomas Gwynedd Roberts.
On 22nd July of last year, in the Crown Court at Mold, these two appellants (Hugh Roberts and Thomas Roberts) pleaded guilty, Hugh Roberts to aiding and abetting the rape of his wife (count 1) and to an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, also to his wife (count 2), Thomas Roberts to rape. Hugh Roberts was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment in respect of aiding and abetting rape and to a concurrent term of 12 months' imprisonment for the assault. That is 5 years in all. Thomas Roberts was sentenced to 2½ years' imprisonment for rape.
They both now appeal against those sentences by leave of the single judge.
Hugh Roberts is the nephew of Thomas Roberts. Hugh is 27 and Thomas is 53. Hugh Roberts was married to Edwina. She was 26. They had married very young and at this stage she already had four young children, ranging between the ages of 7 and 2. Despite the comparative brewity of the marriage, there was a long history of matrimonial discord. It is plain from the evidence that Hugh (the nephew) is a man addicted to violence, as his criminal record will shortly show. The wife had made complaints to probation officers about assaults upon her committed by her husband, particularly when he was in drink.
So far as the second count is concerned (the assault upon his wife) that took place on 5th February of last year, when he returned home in a temper and pushed his wife around the kitchen with such violence that she fell and injured her head and arm.
The circumstances of the rape were these. On the evening of 9th February of last year these two men (Hugh the nephew and Thomas the uncle) met together. Hugh invited his uncle home for drinks. It should be stated that the uncle (plainly from his police record) is a drunkard, to put it briefly. One of the reports upon him makes it plain, as was indicated to the judge, that he would do almost anything for a drink. Both these men had too much to drink. The upshot was that the nephew invited his uncle home to spend the night.
There were two beds in the main bedroom: a double bed and a single bed. The wife (Edwina) not unnaturally, thought that uncle would occupy the single bed. She went to bed first. When the two men came up, to her surprise, both of them got into the double bed with her. Each of the two men (nephew and uncle) then started to touch her about the body. The husband then encouraged the uncle to have intercourse with Edwina, the wife. The uncle had had too much to drink to achieve an erection. When that was evident, the husband actually went so far as to try and guide the uncle's penis into his wife's vagina. Those efforts were unsuccessful.
The uncle then left the double bed, went to the single bed and the husband had sexual intercourse with his wife.
She was in a quandary. She would have liked to run away, but was afraid that if she did her husband would chase her and treat her in the way as was his habit.
She fell asleep, but was woken up in the early hours by uncle coming back to the double bed. On this occasion the effects of the drink had apparently worn off. The husband held the wife's arms while the uncle had sexual intercourse with her. Afterwards the husband again had sexual intercourse with this unfortunate woman.
In the morning, after seeing to the children, she went eventually to a probation officer, to whom she complained as to what had happened.
The uncle (Thomas) was seen that afternoon and admitted the offence, saying that the nephew had kept encouraging him. He realised that what he had done had been wrong and he said that the husband had said earlier in the evening that his wife was going around with another man.
The husband initially denied the offence. Later he admitted it. The case was opened initially as a trial, but the plea was changed before anyone gave evidence.
It is plain from the papers that the husband had deliberately engineered this situation in order to punish his wife for her fancied infidelity. The object of the exercise seems to have been deliberately to degrade his wife by these events and to punish her. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Camillus Paris
...age of difference of 42 - 44 years); 2. Seriousness and prevalence of the offences (as per Creque J in DPP v Shaunlee Fahie) 4 In R. v. Roberts (Hugh) [1982] 1 WLR 133, Lord Lane CJ stated at pages 134-135: "Rape is always a serious crime. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, it ......
- Ong Lai Kim v PP and other appeals
- Tengku Ahmad Hanif bin Tuan Par lwn Pendakwa Raya
- Mohd Hanif Kassim v PP
-
Progress at a Price: The Construction of Non‐Stranger Rape in the Millberry Sentencing Guidelines
...in J. Bridgman and S. Millns (eds.), Law and Body Politics: Regulating the FemaleBody (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1995).4Roberts [1982] 1 All ER 609, Billam (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 48.For discussion of thecircumstances leading to the Roberts and Billam guidelines, see J. Temkin, Rape and the Legal......