Alex Hepburn (cricketer)

On 9 November 2017, Hepburn was charged with one count of oral rape, and one count of vaginal rape. Those charges were not confirmed to the public until 29 November 2017. Worcestershire County Cricket Club suspended Hepburn on full pay,[4] but did not renew his contract when it expired at the end of September 2018.[5] At Hepburn's trial in January 2019, the jury failed to reach a verdict, and as a result were discharged.[6]

He underwent a retrial in April 2019.[7] During the trial Hepburn admitted he had sent "disgusting" WhatsApp messages relating to a sexual conquest competition.[8][9] Worcestershire County Cricket Club issued a statement saying that they were appalled by the details reported in the case.[10] On April 12 he was convicted of one count of oral rape, but was acquitted of the vaginal rape charge.[11] On 30 April 2019, Hepburn was sentenced to five years in prison, and placed on the sex offenders register for life.[12][13]

In May 2020, Hepburn appealed his conviction on the ground that it was an unsafe verdict. He was represented by David Emanuel QC.[11] His appeal was made on two grounds. Ground one was that the WhatsApp messages were irrelevant and prejudicial to the trial, and ought not to have been admitted. The court rejected his submission, finding that the messages were relevant as important explanatory evidence, and relevant to an "important matter in issue between the parties, namely, belief in consent",[14] as his attitudes toward consent were found to be relevant as to his likelihood of having committed the offence. The court also found that the prosecutor Ms Moore QC's questions relating to Hepburn's promiscuity were correctly objected to, but did not undermine the conviction.[15]

His second ground of appeal was that the jury's acquittal of him having committed vaginal rape, was inconsistent with their verdict that he had committed oral rape. The court stated:

Even if one starts from the premise that the complainant was awake at the outset, the jury could be sure she did not appreciate that it was the appellant with whom she was having sex at the beginning, and that he had no genuine and reasonable belief that she was consenting, but that things might have changed the longer the sexual contact went on without any outward demonstration of a lack of consent (accepted by the complainant) it is at least possible that by the time vaginal intercourse started the jury's conclusion about the appellant's belief and whether it was reasonable was different. —Lord Chief Justice Burnett[15]

As both arguments in support of an unsafe verdict finding failed, Hepburn's appeal against conviction was dismissed.[16]