Sex beast who raped woman in Hartlepool after she called him ‘gorgeous’ has appeal rejected

REJECTED: Malcolm Mayes
REJECTED: Malcolm Mayes

A SEX beast who raped a woman who called him “gorgeous” has failed in a Court of Appeal bid to clear his name.

Malcolm Mayes, 37, of Silverbirch Road, Hartlepool, attacked the teenager at his flat, raping her forcibly after they met on a night out.

He claimed she consented, but was found guilty by a jury of rape in June last year and jailed for seven years at Teesside Crown Court.

His case was back in court earlier this week as he launched a legal bid to overturn the conviction.

But it took three judges only 40 minutes to rule against him, dismissing his appeal and upholding his conviction.

The court heard that the young victim had gone back to Mayes’ flat after a drinking session.

She became “uncomfortable” about his manner, but did not leave when he went out to get food because she did not know where she was.

When he returned, she was in bed pretending to be asleep. He became aggressive and raped her forcibly.

At the Court of Appeal, Mayes’ barrister Roderick Hunt, argued that the jury’s guilty verdict was “arguably unsafe”.

The trial judge had summed up the evidence in the case in an unfair and imbalanced manner, he told Lord Justice Fulford, Mr Justice Holroyde and Judge Peter Lakin.

While he had read out the woman’s video-recorded evidence in full, he had made scant mention of the cross-examination.

In that cross-examination, she had admitted an attraction towards Mayes and that she had called him “gorgeous”, the barrister said.

But rejecting the appeal bid, Mr Justice Holroyde said there was nothing wrong with the way the judge summed up the case.

“It was not incumbent on the judge to remind the jury of ever word of the evidence, nor was it incumbent on him to remind the jury of every point made by the prosecution or defence,” he said.

“It was for him to determine how best to assist the jury in reminding them of the evidence which had been given during this short trial.

“We conclude that there is no merit whatsoever in the ground of appeal put forward in this case.

“We are satisfied that the summing up was a fair and even-handed summary of the important evidence given on each side.

“There was an ample evidential foundation for the jury’s verdict.

“There is no ground on which it could be argued that the conviction is unsafe.”