The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by C.P. against the refusal to extend the time for him to appeal his convictions for three counts of sexual assault and nine counts of rape. The Court also rejected his argument that he should receive the full trial transcript before formulating appeal grounds.
C.P. was convicted in the Central Criminal Court on 25 February 2019 and sentenced a month later. Each rape sentence was 15 years, with the final two years suspended; lesser sentences were imposed for the other counts. The complainant, who was his daughter, was between seven and 13 during the period in which the offences were alleged to have occurred. The Supreme Court stressed that the case before it was not an appeal against conviction.
C.P. filed a notice of appeal and sought an extension of time in April 2021, more than two years after sentencing. His initial proposed grounds were general claims that helpful defence evidence had not been presented, prosecution evidence was misleading, and the verdict was unsafe. The Court of Appeal allowed him access to the complainant’s evidence transcript but later refused to extend time, after his lawyers sought the full transcript to examine an issue about periods when he may not have had contact with his daughter.
The Supreme Court reviewed the available evidence and prosecution attendance notes. It found that the contact issue had been explored at trial and formed part of a defence application asking the trial judge to withdraw counts from the jury. There was conflicting evidence from the complainant and her mother about whether C.P. had contact with the children during a period when he lived away. The trial judge left the issue to the jury, which was entitled to assess the witnesses’ evidence. The Court said the conflict alone did not provide a basis for directing acquittals.
The Court also said the initial complaints about cross-examination, the absence of medical evidence and not calling social workers had fallen away or did not raise a viable appeal point. It declined to find that the Court of Appeal had erred in refusing the full transcript.
Applying the test of what the interests of justice required in the circumstances, the Supreme Court found the delay inadequately explained and the proposed grounds unsupported after fuller examination. It dismissed the appeal. The Court did not hear or determine an appeal against the convictions themselves.