The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the conviction of a man for one count of rape and 115 counts of indecent assault or sexual assault, finding no basis to conclude that the trial was unfair or the verdicts unsafe.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Birmingham on 7 February 2017, addressed the conviction appeal only. The appellant had also appealed his sentence: ten years’ imprisonment for rape and concurrent five-year terms for the other counts. The court did not determine that part of the appeal in this judgment.
The convictions followed a Central Criminal Court trial. The prosecution alleged that abuse began when the complainant was six and continued over a period from 1981 to 1993. The court noted that the jury acquitted the appellant on 27 counts and that a direction was granted in respect of 29 counts.
The appellant challenged the admission of evidence from two people to whom the complainant had spoken about the abuse, including a friend and a treating psychiatrist. The Court of Appeal said the trial judge had been entitled to consider the impression left by cross-examination, which had made the absence of complaints a major theme. It concluded that admitting the earlier accounts was within the judge’s discretion.
The court also rejected a challenge to evidence from six civilian witnesses. Their evidence included accounts of the appellant being in bed naked with young girls, naked gymnastics, and the complainant being present when the appellant answered a door naked. The court said the evidence was relevant and probative of the relationship described by the complainant. It noted that no criminal wrongdoing was alleged in relation to the occasion when the friends were present.
Two further appeal grounds concerned prosecution rebuttal evidence after the appellant testified about giving the complainant and her school friends sex education with their mothers’ permission. The court said the issue had been introduced by the appellant and had not been put to prosecution witnesses in cross-examination. It upheld the trial judge’s ruling allowing brief questions to witnesses, including the mother of one of the girls, who denied giving permission.
The court found the trial judge’s direction on the long delay adequate. It referred to memory, investigative difficulties and the absence of forensic evidence. It also rejected the claim that the jury’s mix of convictions and acquittals was perverse, saying the acquittals could reflect doubt about when the abuse began or ended and about whether later touching was without consent.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed.