R v JF
Court of Appeal
Citations:  EWCA Crim 2936.
The defendant was convicted of six counts of raping his daughter. He appealed his conviction on two grounds. The first was that he had not penetrated her vagina sufficiently for his acts to amount to rape. The second was that the judge had improperly allowed hearsay evidence.
- What constitutes penetration of the vagina, for the purposes of the offence of rape?
- Had the judge improperly allowed hearsay evidence?
The Court of Appeal rejected the first ground of appeal, but allowed the appeal on the second ground. The word ‘vagina’ should be interpreted in the colloquial sense, not the medical sense. It was sufficient that the defendant had penetrated the girl’s vulva. However, the conviction was unsafe because the judge had improperly admitted hearsay evidence.