The Court of Appeal has dismissed A.M.’s appeal against conviction, finding no error in the trial judge’s refusal to discharge the jury after prejudicial character evidence was heard during the trial.
A.M. was convicted on six rape counts on 26 July 2019. The appeal concerned whether the jury should have been discharged, or a direction given, after the complainant and her partner made allegations about A.M.’s alleged criminal conduct. The judgment records that the appeal’s second ground was treated as part of the first, which focused on the jury-discharge issue.
The complainant testified about alleged incidents in 2013 and 2016. During cross-examination about her account that A.M. had produced a pistol in the first incident, she made allegations including that he dealt drugs and had murdered someone in Russia. Her partner also made allegations about theft, violence and drugs. The Court of Appeal described the material as evidence of bad character and acknowledged that it was prejudicial. It noted, however, that the defence had been given details of A.M.’s previous convictions and that the questioning risked eliciting such evidence.
The trial judge initially refused an application to discharge the jury after the pistol evidence emerged. The defence later renewed its application at the close of the prosecution case, seeking a direction and also asking the court to discharge the jury and stop the trial. The appeal court considered the timing significant: no application to discharge the jury was made when the later allegations arose, and the judge considered that the cross-examination formed part of the defence case.
The Court of Appeal said a discharge is not automatic whenever prejudicial evidence reaches a jury. The trial judge must assess its nature and likely effect, how it arose, the timing of the application and whether a judicial direction can address the prejudice. The appeal court gave deference to the trial judge’s assessment of the trial’s course and context.
The trial judge directed the jury to disregard the bad-character evidence and consider only the evidence concerning the indictment counts. The appeal court found those directions clear and unambiguous and said no issue had been taken with how the judge addressed the material. It was not persuaded that the judge had erred in refusing the applications. The appeal was dismissed; the judgment does not set out any further order.