The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by TM and CC against their convictions for offences involving two children, finding that the challenges to the recorded interviews, delay and cross-examination did not establish that the trial was unfair.
In a judgment delivered on 14 June 2024, the court said the trial judge had not erred in admitting video-recorded interviews under section 16 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992. The judge had found both children competent to give an intelligible account. The appeal court agreed, saying the interviews showed that they understood questions and could give understandable answers about the alleged sexual acts.
The appellants argued that interviewers had used leading and tag questions and brought material from earlier clarification meetings into the interviews. The Court of Appeal accepted that some leading and tag questions breached interview guidelines, but said the children were then required to give their own accounts. It upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that the interview process did not make the recordings unreliable or render their admission contrary to the interests of justice.
The court also rejected the argument that the delay alone required the interviews to be excluded or the trial halted. It described the eight years between the first recorded interview and the trial as “shocking” and urged investigators, prosecutors and the courts to ensure child sexual-offence cases proceed more quickly. But it said delay must have a real effect on trial fairness; delay by itself was not enough.
At trial, K was not directly asked about the alleged events, the appeal court said. B was asked whether the events occurred and said they did, but the questioning did not go further. The court agreed with the trial judge that the defence had not established that meaningful cross-examination about the alleged acts was impossible. It said counsel should attempt a full cross-examination within the ground rules before arguing that a child’s lack of recollection makes it impossible.
The appeal court also upheld the admission of evidence from the children’s foster mother about disclosures B made to her, finding the accounts provided further detail and could be considered by the jury as evidence of consistency. It concluded that none of the grounds pursued at the hearing succeeded and dismissed both appeals against conviction. The judgment does not alter the convictions or sentences described in the appeal: TM had received 19 years’ imprisonment and CC 14 years, backdated to 11 November 2022.