The Court of Appeal has dismissed M.R.'s appeal against convictions arising from allegations of sexual abuse, finding no error in the trial judge's decision to leave nine counts for the jury to determine.
During the trial, the judge had withdrawn counts 9 to 20 after the prosecution accepted that the evidence supporting those charges was arguably too general. Counts 1 to 8 and count 21 remained before the jury.
M.R. argued on appeal that there was no sufficient basis for distinguishing between the withdrawn and remaining counts. His lawyers pointed to a lack of precise dates, inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts and difficulty matching particular allegations to individual counts.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. Mr Justice Edwards said the evidence supporting counts 1 to 8 and count 21 was more specific and stronger. Although there were weaknesses and inconsistencies, they were not so serious that no properly directed jury could convict.
The court explained that withdrawing a criminal charge from a jury because of weak prosecution evidence is an exceptional step. Questions of credibility and reliability ordinarily remain for the jury unless the evidence is so deficient that allowing a verdict would create a manifest risk of wrongful conviction.
M.R.'s second ground relied on statements in a victim impact statement supplied after the trial. He argued that parts of it contradicted the complainant's trial evidence and could have provided additional material for cross-examination.
The court examined three areas, including the complainant's description of her earlier relationship with M.R., statements about a shower being disabled and the timing of the final alleged incident.
It distinguished earlier cases where significant undisclosed information had emerged after conviction. Here, the court regarded the new material as minor detail and was not persuaded that earlier disclosure would have produced materially different cross-examination or affected the result.
Both grounds were rejected and the appeal was dismissed.