The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Chaene Onumwere leave to appeal his conviction for sexual assault and a six-year prison sentence, finding that the grounds raised did not show that the trial was unfair or unsatisfactory.
In a judgment delivered on 24 May 2007, the court considered seven grounds of appeal. Three of the ten grounds originally listed were not pursued, and others were grouped for consideration. The application was for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence; the court’s stated order was to refuse leave to appeal against conviction.
The applicant argued that the trial judge wrongly prevented defence questioning of nightclub doorman Werner Brown about the complainant’s conduct. The appeal court held that the proposed evidence went to credibility on a matter collateral to the case, and that consent was not in issue. It concluded that Brown’s evidence had been properly excluded.
The defence also challenged late disclosure of additional DNA analysis records after the prosecution had closed its case. The court accepted that the material was disclosed late, but said the only discrepancy identified concerned element 16 in tests on one garment and had already emerged in cross-examination. It found the additional material confirmatory of the prosecution scientist’s evidence and not exculpatory, and concluded that the late disclosure had not affected trial fairness.
On the applicant’s detention as a child suspect, the court noted that he was arrested just under two months before his eighteenth birthday, based on a date of birth supplied in connection with an asylum application. The trial judge had made no finding on his age but considered the submissions on the basis that he was under 18. The appeal court found no breach of the statutory rules concerning detention in a cell, notification and adult attendance, or questioning in the presence of an adult. It said an adult, Mr Chiani, was present for interviews and that his involvement met the requirements in the circumstances.
The applicant further argued that failures to comply with rules for taking forensic samples required the DNA evidence to be excluded. The appeal court found the evidence showed that the applicant had been told the offence, that sample-taking had been authorised, and that test results could be used in the case. It also noted that he consented to some samples but refused a blood sample, indicating awareness that he could refuse.
Having considered the custody and forensic evidence issues together with the other grounds, the court concluded that the trial had been fair and satisfactory. It refused leave to appeal against conviction.