The Court of Appeal has dismissed F.B.’s appeal against conviction for five counts of rape and sexual assault involving his daughter. The judgment, delivered on 11 July 2022, addressed conviction only; it did not review the sentences imposed at trial.
The convictions concerned two incidents at the family home. The first was alleged to have occurred on an unknown date in 2004, when the complainant was between 13 and 14. The second was alleged to have occurred on 12 January 2011, when she was 21. The trial court imposed concurrent prison sentences ranging from six to 12 years, with the final year suspended.
At the appeal hearing, F.B. pursued three of the eight grounds originally filed. He challenged the trial judge’s direction that evidence from the complainant’s mother, identified as CB, could potentially corroborate the complainant’s evidence about the 2011 incident. He argued that CB’s account was inconsistent and too unreliable to be treated as potentially corroborative. He also challenged the jury directions on recent complaint evidence concerning what the complainant told her friend JW the day after the 2004 incident.
The Court of Appeal said CB’s evidence, if accepted, was independent of the complainant’s testimony and tended to implicate F.B. The court acknowledged the points raised about inconsistencies and weaknesses in CB’s account, but found that she had not withdrawn her contention that F.B. made an admission. The jury had been told the evidence was capable of corroborating the relevant charges if they accepted it, and to give CB’s evidence careful consideration. The judge had not told them it was in fact corroborative. The appeal court found no error in that direction or in the judge’s handling of the asserted weaknesses.
On recent complaint evidence, the court found the jury had been told it could be used only to assess consistency with the complainant’s testimony, not as corroboration. Although the judge did not expressly say it was not evidence proving the facts complained of, the court considered the limited purpose sufficiently clear. It rejected this ground as well as the two grounds concerning corroboration.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed.