R v Coates [2008] 1 Cr App R 52
Rape – Consent – Intoxication – Oral Statements – Inconsistent Evidence – Admissibility of Evidence – s119 Criminal Justice Act 2003 – s120(4)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003
Facts
The defendant was a senior naval rating at the time of the incident and the complainant was a naval medical assistant, both working aboard a ship. They worked closely as professionals, but there was no indication of any other relationship. There was a barbeque on the quarterdeck; both the defendant and complainant had consumed alcohol. There was a brief exchange between them, where the complainant gave the defendant a kiss on the cheek. They later had sexual intercourse. The complainant could not recall the events or making statements, but these statements taken afterwards were used as evidence for alleged rape. He admitted intercourse took place, but said it was consensual. Convicted of rape.
Issues
The conviction was appealed and the defendant wished to address the admissibility of one of the statements the complainant gave after the incident, as it was inconsistent with her testimony. This was under s119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Thus, the defendant argued that it was not admissible under s120(4)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Decision/Outcome
The conviction was quashed and the Court said it was unsafe. It was concluded that the first statement of the complainant ‘should not have been treated as admissible evidence sufficient to form the basis for a conviction for rape disavowed by the complainant herself’ [42]. It was viewed as unreliable. The Court also believed that the directions given to the Board were not as ‘full and complete’ [44] as they should have been regarding the evidence and testimony.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case note accurately describes the Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Coates [2007] EWCA Crim 1471, reported at [2008] 1 Cr App R 52. The case remains good law on the admissibility and weight of prior inconsistent statements under ss.119 and 120 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and those statutory provisions remain in force unamended in the respects relevant to the case. There are no subsequent statutory changes or later appellate decisions that materially undermine or overrule the principles described. Readers should note that the broader law on consent in rape cases has continued to be developed through case law since 2008, particularly regarding intoxication and capacity to consent under s.74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and students may wish to read this case alongside later authorities in that area. The article is otherwise accurate and current.
