The Court of Appeal has dismissed H.S.’s appeal against convictions for sexual offences involving two sisters, upholding the trial judge’s decisions on the grounds pursued at the appeal hearing.
H.S. was convicted in September 2021 of one count of rape and eight counts of indecent assault concerning his sister MC, and four counts of indecent assault concerning another sister, RC. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered on 24 April 2023, records that the offences alleged spanned 1974 to 1981, when H.S. was aged between 14 and 21. The sisters and addresses are anonymised in the judgment.
H.S. argued that the trial should have been stopped because the passage of decades had caused unfair prejudice, including the loss of potential witnesses and records. He also challenged the decision to try the allegations together, the admission of his 2010 interview with social workers and notes he had prepared, amendments to the indictment, and the refusal to direct acquittals.
The court said the trial judge had separately and conscientiously considered whether the trial remained fair. It found that H.S.’s 2010 notes showed he had set out a detailed account of where he said he lived during relevant periods, and that he had admitted inappropriate touching of MC, while disputing the dates and denying intercourse. The court concluded that the unavailable witnesses and records did not establish a reasonable possibility that he had lost an obviously useful line of defence. It also said the jury had heard evidence about the disputed whereabouts and could assess the witnesses’ accounts.
On severance, the appeal court found that the allegations shared material features: they concerned sexual offences against two younger sisters in family homes, and the sisters described secrecy and threats. It held that differences in the alleged acts and locations did not require separate trials. The possibility of contamination between the sisters was a matter for the jury, with appropriate directions from the trial judge.
The court also upheld the admission of the social workers’ notes. It was not persuaded that the meeting was involuntary or that the notes were unreliable, and considered the material relevant to the case. It found no unfairness in amending the indictment after the evidence, reasoning that the dates were not essential to the alleged offences and that H.S.’s defence was that the offending had not occurred.
Finally, the court held that the inconsistencies identified by H.S. were for the jury to assess and that the evidence did not meet the exceptional threshold for withdrawing the case. It dismissed the appeal after finding no merit in the five grounds pursued. The judgment does not report any change to the convictions or sentence.