The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by PP against a conviction for indecent assault, finding that the trial was not unfair or unsatisfactory and that the verdict was not unsafe.
PP was convicted on 2 November 2018 of one count relating to GMcP. The jury returned a majority verdict of 10 to two. PP had faced three counts involving two complainants: the jury acquitted on the other two, including a count involving the same complainant. PP was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment on 3 April 2019.
The case concerned alleged incidents in July 1980, when GMcP was 14. The Court of Appeal’s judgment recounts her evidence that PP assaulted her on two nights while she was staying at his home. Those were allegations heard at trial; the appeal concerned the safety of the resulting conviction.
PP argued that the trial judge’s summing-up failed to present the defence case adequately or remind jurors of important inconsistencies in the evidence. The appeal court rejected that criticism. It said the jury had been reminded that the defence alleged inconsistencies and of their claimed significance. It also found it appropriate for the judge to review witnesses’ answers, noting that counsel’s questions were sometimes argumentative and included comment.
The appellant also argued that the jury may have felt pressured to reach a verdict because of the late sitting and the length of deliberations. The jury began deliberating on the afternoon of Friday, 2 November. After reporting difficulty agreeing on one count, it returned unanimous acquittals on two counts, received a majority-verdict direction on the remaining count, and returned its final verdict at 6.43pm, after three hours and 12 minutes of deliberation in total.
The appeal court said the deliberation period was not particularly burdensome. It noted that the jury had a lunch break, during which lunch was provided at a nearby hotel, and that the defence had agreed to allow deliberations to continue after the two acquittals. The court was not persuaded that fatigue had coerced the jury into a verdict.
It also rejected the argument that the different verdicts undermined the conviction. The court said jurors must consider each count separately. It observed that uncertainty about whether an early complaint covered both alleged incidents could explain an acquittal on one count without casting doubt on the conviction on another.
The court dismissed the appeal. The conviction and sentence therefore remained in place.