The Court of Appeal has dismissed W.M.’s appeal against his convictions for aggravated sexual assault and causing serious harm, rejecting four grounds of challenge to the jury trial. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 15 May 2018, concerned the convictions only; it did not deal with the appeal against sentence.
W.M. was convicted by a jury in July 2013 and sentenced to concurrent 13-year prison terms. The case arose from an assault at a rural village address some days before 8 December 2011. The complainant told the jury that W.M. sexually assaulted her while she was asleep. Medical evidence described a severe vaginal injury that the consultant said was life-threatening and could not have been caused by normal sex or a vibrator. W.M. denied inserting his fist, and did not give evidence before the jury.
The appeal court rejected a challenge to the trial continuing with ten jurors after two jurors said they could not remain because the trial had overrun. The court said the trial judge had checked that the difficulties were unavoidable and sought the parties’ views. Defence counsel, after taking instructions, told the judge that W.M. had “no objection” to proceeding with ten. The appeal court held that the judge had properly exercised his discretion under the Juries Act 1976.
The court also rejected complaints about the refusal to adjourn after W.M. discharged his legal team on the eighth day of trial, after the prosecution had closed its case. W.M. said he could not represent himself and needed another legal team. The appeal court concluded that the trial judge was entitled to proceed, finding no unfairness in refusing to discharge the jury and adjourn for a retrial. It noted that W.M. had been represented throughout the prosecution case and had been told he could give evidence or address the jury in closing.
A further ground concerned the complainant’s unsolicited statement during cross-examination that W.M. was a sex offender and was on a sex offender list. The Court of Appeal described the remark as highly prejudicial, but noted that the defence did not apply for action at the time and continued cross-examination. It concluded that the defence team had consciously made a tactical decision not to object then, and that the issue could not fairly be raised later as a basis to overturn the conviction.
The court found that none of the four grounds made the trial unsatisfactory or the verdict unsafe, and dismissed the appeal against conviction.