The Court of Appeal has quashed three convictions against an anonymised appellant and ordered a retrial, finding that two trial fairness concerns, considered together, left it uneasy about the safety of the convictions.
The appellant had been convicted in May 2021 of rape, sexual assault and assault causing harm. The charges arose from alleged incidents at an apartment shared by the appellant and a partner in October and December 2015. The judgment identifies the complainants only by initials. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 20 July; the source does not state the year in that date line.
The appeal focused on whether the trial judge should have discharged the jury after a complainant’s friend made a reference in evidence to stories he had heard about the appellant, and after jurors raised a concern that a defence witness and two other young people appeared to be photographing them in a car park. The Court rejected the argument that the first remark, by itself, made the convictions unsatisfactory.
On the car park incident, the trial judge asked the jury whether anyone had a concern to bring to the court’s attention. The foreperson said the matter had been “resolved”, but the judge did not ask what had happened or how it had been resolved. The Court of Appeal said that further questions should have been asked because the alleged incident took place outside the jury room and involved a defence witness. It said the lack of inquiry left the court and the parties uncertain about both the event and its possible effect on jurors.
The court also considered the trial judge’s decision to exclude part of the appellant’s interview answer about tablets. The excluded passage included claims that taking four 300mg Lyrica tablets would have caused an overdose or left the complainant visibly affected the next day. The Court of Appeal said the medication was significant to the defence account and that the answer was the appellant’s own experience, rather than an inadmissible expert opinion. It also said the fact that the full contention had not been put to the complainant was not, in this case, a basis to exclude the interview material; a jury direction could have addressed her lack of opportunity to comment.
The court said neither concern alone would have been enough to make the convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory. Taken together, however, they gave it “an element of disquiet” about the convictions. It quashed them and ordered a retrial. The judgment does not state when or where a retrial will take place.