The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by L.N. against convictions on two rape counts and ten indecent assault counts, rejecting challenges to the joint trial and the refusal to withdraw the case from the jury.
The judgment, delivered on 23 April 2024, concerned a 12-count indictment involving four complainants. Three were nieces of L.N.; the fourth was his sister’s sister-in-law. The counts related to allegations said to have occurred from 1971 to 1986. The appeal court’s decision addressed the trial process, not a fresh determination of the underlying allegations.
At trial, the defence sought separate trials for each complainant, arguing that communications between some complainants created a risk of collusion or mutual contamination. The trial judge refused. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that most messages reflected mutual support and few, if any, discussed the specific alleged offending. It said conversations about dates did not require severance and could be explored before the jury in assessing credibility and reliability.
The appeal also sought to add a new argument that the two rape counts should have been separated from each other and from the indecent assault counts. That point had not been pursued at trial, even after the trial judge asked counsel about it. The appeal court rejected the proposed ground, finding no fundamental injustice that would justify considering it at that stage.
On the merits of the severance argument, the court said rape and indecent assault are offences of a similar nature for the relevant joinder rule. It found a sufficient connection between the adult rape allegation and the earlier alleged abuse of the first complainant: in her account, the adult incident was linked to what she said had happened when she was a child. The court stressed that the conclusion depended on the circumstances and wording of this case.
The defence had also asked the trial judge to withdraw the case from the jury, citing the passage of time, difficulty narrowing the date of one alleged offence, unavailable potential witnesses and the joint trial of the rape and assault counts. The trial judge refused, saying the timing and witness issues could be addressed through directions to the jury. The Court of Appeal found no error, concluding those matters did not establish a real risk of an unfair trial requiring the trial to stop.
Having rejected all grounds of appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not set out any separate order varying the convictions.