The Court of Appeal has dismissed C O’R’s appeal against his rape conviction, finding no legal basis to overturn it. The court said the conviction was safe and the trial satisfactory. The appeal concerned the conviction; the judgment does not report a separate appeal against sentence.
C O’R was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on 4 July 2012, following a retrial and a jury verdict of 10 to two. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison. The conviction related to the rape of his 66-year-old mother, as described in the judgment.
The judgment records that the incident took place at the complainant’s home on the night of 2 March 2008. She told the trial that she and her son had been dancing before she found herself on the floor and he was having intercourse with her. She said she told him to leave her alone and that he continued. C O’R admitted intercourse but said it was consensual. Those were competing accounts at trial; the jury found him guilty.
On appeal, C O’R argued that the evidence was too weak and inconsistent to go to the jury. He also said the defence was prejudiced because the complainant’s medical and psychiatric records had not been provided, and argued that the trial judge should have given further directions to the jury after the closing speeches.
The Court of Appeal held there was sufficient evidence for the jury to decide whether the complainant had consented. It said questions about her recollection, reliability and the conflicting accounts were for the jury, which had to be sure of guilt beyond reasonable doubt to convict.
The court also upheld the refusal to order access to the records. It said the defence had made a general request without showing how the historic psychiatric treatment or other records were relevant to the case. The records had not been in the prosecution’s possession. The court found no error in allowing the complainant to explain that her doctor had advised her not to provide them: the evidence explained her decision and was not presented to prove the doctor’s statement was true.
Finally, the court found that the trial judge had adequately presented the defence case, addressed the evidence and correctly explained the law on belief in consent. It dismissed all grounds of appeal and left the conviction undisturbed.