The Court of Appeal has dismissed T.Q.’s challenge to his convictions for 11 counts of rape and 36 counts of sexual assault against his son.
T.Q. was convicted by a Central Criminal Court jury after an 11-day trial. The complainant, who was 25 by the time of the appeal, gave evidence that his father subjected him to sexual violence and abuse in the family home over two or three years from the age of 12.
The appeal focused principally on how the jury had been directed about immunity from prosecution granted to two important prosecution witnesses: the complainant and T.Q.’s wife.
The judgment records that the complainant had himself sexually abused a younger sister when he was about 18. He received immunity shortly before T.Q.’s trial. T.Q.’s wife, who gave corroborative evidence, received immunity during a break in her cross-examination. She had previously been prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for serious offences including neglect of her children.
The Court of Appeal said the grants of immunity had to be brought to the jury’s attention because of the possibility that they could influence the witnesses’ evidence.
Although the trial judge did not initially address immunity in his charge, defence counsel raised the issue afterwards. The judge then specifically told jurors to consider whether the immunities might have encouraged either witness to give untruthful evidence.
The appeal court held that this supplemental direction was clear and unambiguous. It said the jury was left in no doubt about the need to assess the witnesses’ credibility in light of the immunity arrangements.
A separate complaint about the wider treatment of their credibility had not been raised at trial. The court held that the threshold for considering such a new point on appeal — a fundamental injustice — had not been met.
The conviction appeal was therefore dismissed. The judgment expressly states that it deals only with conviction and not T.Q.’s separate sentence appeal.