"'One day after school, I met up with this friend of mine and there was two or three Asian men outside Ferham Primary School waiting for us. We got into the Primary School and they had, like, flowerbeds, like oval-shaped flowerbed with some trees. They had, like, two or three going down the walls off the back of the playground. This man called Rudy, and I cannot recall the other guy’s name at all – I was forced into giving oral sex in the bush in Ferham Primary School, which that took about ten minutes because obviously I were nervous and I didn't know what to do and so it happened. I had to go down and he forced his thingy into my mouth. There's so much and that's basically where it all started from that day, when I were younger. I used to get bullied by a lot of white people and I've always – from the end, that's when I started hanging around with the older people; the girl of a friend of mine, she was older than I were. So, I started hanging round with the older people so I'd get accepted and that was the first time. There was quite a few. We carried on chilling out with the same guys, Rudy and the other guy and Rudy's brother, Asim''."
"'So I was really young. It were either behind a church or behind Happidayz Nursery. Happidayz Nursery has got like an extended little bit on there. And he were like "
"The [applicant] accepts that at the material time, he was known as 'Tipper'. The [applicant] accepts that he had sexual intercourse with [C2]. He denies the offences of rape both because she consented to any sexual activity that occurred, and because he honestly and reasonably believed that she was consenting. Reasons for dispute The [applicant] met [C2] in summer 2007. He cannot precisely remember how he met her or how they got each other's telephone numbers. It is possible however that this was through meeting her somewhere outdoors – either a park or a golf club – because he remembers her being present there with a woman who had a child. … The [applicant] agrees that soon after meeting C2 and getting her number, they met up and had sex in his car, although he does not think it was the very first time they met after exchanging numbers. The way in which that sex occurred was broadly as described by [C2] … Thereafter the [applicant] did meet [C2] fairly regularly for a couple of months, mostly but not always in the evening. They did not have sex on every occasion that they met but he agrees that they had vaginal sex, and that she performed oral sex on him, several times. The [applicant] does not however have any recollection of having anal sex with [C2]. The [applicant] accepts that he had sex with [C2] at the Etap or Ibis Hotel. He accepts that it is possible that there was an occasion where he was having sex with [C2] and Raman Bari was present with another girl… Any sexual activity in which the [applicant] engaged with [C2] was consensual and he honestly believed both that she was old enough to consent and that she was consenting. The [applicant] did not take [C2] to his house. In 2007 he was not living with his parents because of his licence conditions. His brothers were living with his parents. He did not ever meet [C2] with either of his brothers. The [applicant] agrees that he would pick up and drop off [C2] in his car sometimes, although sometimes she would make her way independently to meet him. He was not aware she was living in supported accommodation and was not aware that, at the time he met her, she was still 15. He thought she was about 17 or 18 because that is how old she looked, and how she behaved."
"Mr Wood's application provides, if I may say so, a very helpful and accurate exposition of both the law and the evidence relevant to the application and there is an equally valuable response on both topics from the prosecution as well. Having carefully considered both in conjunction with my own reading of the case, I take the view that, notwithstanding her age, intelligence and seemingly robust character, this was in fact a vulnerable, isolated young teenager who craved attention and friendship. She was without a settled home, spending most of her time in local authority residences, and absent of any family support. Such were the concerns of the authorities about her and her behaviour that in August of 2007 she was referred to [a special organisation] over concerns of sexual exploitation. On the authorities to which I have been helpfully referred, it seems to me that by the time of the alleged offences in counts 18 to 25 she had been groomed to facilitate sexual exploitation, whether by these defendants or whether by others is something I need not explore at this stage. In such circumstances I do not regard her assertions of any sexual activity being consensual with any one of these defendants as being determinative in the case. I do not find therefore that this is one of those rare cases mentioned in Usman[2021] EWCA Crim 502 where it is said a jury could not properly conclude that she did not truly consent. I am therefore in agreement with the response of the prosecution in relation to this part of the application."
"It seems to me that in all the circumstances a consecutive sentence is justified, you having first of all been introduced to the hapless complainant and then going back for more, when she was aged 11."
"Your only surviving ground is based on a submission that your 21 year sentence for these offences should have been (1) consecutive to a 20 year sentence imposed on you in 2019 and (2) then reduced for totality. Instead, the judge considered the question and decided to make the new sentence run concurrently with the balance of the 2019 sentence. That was an unusual approach in light of the Totality guideline which states: 'Generally the sentence will be consecutive as it will have arisen out of an unrelated incident. The court must have regard to the totality of the offender's criminality when passing the second sentence, to ensure that the total sentence to be served is just and proportionate.' However, the word 'generally' [used in the guideline] shows that the judge was not bound to impose consecutive sentences. His duty was to have regard to the principle of totality and pass a just sentence overall. The judge gave express consideration to totality in his sentencing remarks at p 14G-H. There is no reason to believe that the resulting total sentence was too long. The offences for which you were sentenced in 2019 were committed at a completely different time and against different victims. If the new sentence had been made consecutive, any adjustment for totality might have been small. You may well have benefited from the judge's adoption of the concurrent approach."