The Court of Appeal has dismissed S. A.’s appeal against convictions for three counts of rape and 20 counts of sexual assault, finding no error in the trial judge’s rulings or directions to the jury.
The convictions followed a 42-day Central Criminal Court trial and concerned two sisters, identified as CE and JE, who were 10 and 12 at the time of the alleged offences. The alleged offences were said to have occurred between 3 December 2010 and 11 March 2011. The Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 11 March 2020 by Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy.
The appeal challenged, among other matters, the admission and editing of recorded interviews with the complainants, background evidence, the refusal to withdraw the case from the jury, directions on delay and corroboration, replaying interview recordings during deliberations, the judge’s responses to jury requisitions and the refusal to give a further warning about media coverage.
The appeal court upheld the admission of four recorded interviews with JE. It said the trial judge had carefully assessed the interview process and found the notes and drawings JE had prepared were used to help her discuss difficult matters, rather than as a script. The court acknowledged the use of that material was unusual, and said best practice would be to make a brief note of certain meetings with a child witness, but found no error in the trial judge’s decision.
It also found that the challenged background evidence was relevant and necessary to help the jury understand the family’s circumstances and the relationships involved. The court said removing references to another child who was described as asleep in a bed during an alleged assault would have distorted the evidence; it noted that the jury would be told no allegation was made about that child.
The appellant argued that the time between the interviews and trial impaired cross-examination. The court accepted that about seven years had passed, but agreed with the trial judge that the delay did not make the trial unfair. It found the complainants had been cross-examined extensively and that credibility and inconsistencies were matters for the jury. The court also upheld the trial judge’s decision not to give a corroboration warning.
The jury had requested to view portions of the interview recordings during deliberations. The appeal court found no unfairness in replaying the requested material without again summarising cross-examination, noting the trial judge had already given a lengthy, balanced account of the evidence. It also rejected the remaining challenges to the jury charge and the decision not to give a further warning about separate media coverage.
Having rejected each ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judgment did not set aside or vary the convictions.