The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against convictions for rape and sexual assault, finding no basis to overturn the jury’s verdicts or conclude that the trial was unsafe or unsatisfactory.
The appellant, identified in the judgment as G.H., was convicted in November 2018 after a seven-day trial in the Central Criminal Court. Majority jury verdicts found him guilty of one count of rape and four counts of sexual assault. The jury could not agree on two other counts, and nolle prosequis were later entered on those counts. The appellant’s appeal against sentence was not pursued.
The convictions arose from allegations by a complainant identified as O.C. The judgment says she alleged that the offences took place between 2010 and 2013. The appellant’s case at trial was that none of the alleged incidents happened.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge should have given the jury a corroboration warning and that the judge’s directions on consent were confusing. A separate ground concerning a good-character direction was abandoned. The court said the general claim that the trial was unfair, unsafe and unsatisfactory did not require separate consideration.
The Court of Appeal held that whether to give a corroboration warning was within the trial judge’s discretion. The trial judge had declined to give a formal warning but told jurors there was no independent evidence supporting the complainant’s account. He also clarified that evidence from her boyfriend that she had made a complaint was not corroboration. The appeal court found the judge’s decision was open to him and rejected the challenge.
The court agreed that the trial judge’s explanation of consent was not especially helpful and was not a model of clarity. It said, however, that the judge’s charge and later clarification made the central dispute clear: the complainant said sexual activity had occurred without her consent, while the defence said it had not happened. The jury was also told that it could convict only if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the activity occurred without consent.
The appeal was dismissed. The court did not disturb the convictions or the sentences imposed at trial.