The Court of Appeal has dismissed Alan Hanley’s appeal against his conviction for rape, ruling that the trial judge was not required to describe evidence of the complainant’s distress as “weak corroboration” in the precise terms sought by the defence.
Hanley was convicted on one rape count after a 2019 trial in the Central Criminal Court. The jury did not agree on two other counts. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison, backdated to 5 May 2012, with six years of post-release supervision. At the appeal hearing, he pursued only his challenge to the trial judge’s directions on corroboration.
The Court of Appeal said the judge had given a corroboration warning and identified evidence capable of supporting the complainant’s account. This included her distress after leaving the house, her appearance on the street, physical evidence on Hanley’s shoe and certain lies if the jury found they were told to distance him from rape.
The appeal focused on the distress evidence. The defence argued that the jury should have been expressly told that such evidence would frequently be regarded as providing only weak corroboration, particularly because her distress could have resulted from the physical assault. The trial judge had told jurors that it was for them to decide whether the distress was corroborative and what weight to give it. He also asked them to consider whether it could be explained by the assault rather than rape, and said it was sometimes suggested that little weight should be given to distress.
The Court of Appeal said there was no absolute requirement to label distress evidence as weak corroboration. The form of the warning was for the trial judge to decide in light of the circumstances. It noted that the defence accepted on appeal that the distress was genuine and abandoned the argument that it had been feigned.
The court said jurors had CCTV footage and evidence from three witnesses about the complainant’s condition, with their reliability or credibility not challenged. The judge had repeatedly directed them to consider whether the distress arose from rape or assault and had explained that its weight was for them. Viewed as a whole, the charge was adequate, the court held, and the appeal ground was not well founded.
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal. The conviction and sentence remained undisturbed by this appeal.