The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by Boakye Osei and Kelvin Opoku against their convictions for rape, finding that the trial was fair and the verdicts were not unsafe.
The court’s judgment, delivered on 14 March 2022 by President Birmingham, followed a 20-day Central Criminal Court trial. Both men were convicted on 6 November 2019 of rape contrary to common law. The appeals challenged several aspects of the trial, including the complainant’s evidence by live video link from Australia, disclosure of material from her phone, interview evidence and the judge’s directions to the jury.
The court held that the trial judge had properly allowed the complainant to testify by video link. It found the appellants were not prejudiced: both were able to cross-examine her, and the jury could assess her demeanour. The court also upheld the prosecution’s disclosure process for the phone extraction, which contained about 13,000 pages. It said the prosecution had reviewed the material and disclosed relevant content while respecting the complainant’s privacy.
Osei separately challenged the admission of two video clips recorded on the complainant’s phone. The court found their provenance and authenticity established by the complainant’s and her friend’s evidence. It also upheld the admission of DNA evidence linking Osei to semen found on the complainant’s underwear and a condom. The trial judge had concluded that the evidence was relevant and that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect; the Court of Appeal agreed.
The appeals also challenged interview memoranda. The court found no material impact from a breach of custody regulations identified in relation to Osei’s interview, noting that the defence had declined the opportunity to have the trial judge review the interview tapes. It upheld the admission of Opoku’s interviews, including the trial judge’s conclusions on the absence of an interpreter and the grounds for extending detention.
The court rejected arguments about a trial judge’s question to a nurse concerning whether the complainant and her friend still appeared drunk the following day, as well as challenges to the jury charge and alleged excessive judicial intervention. It also upheld the trial judge’s decision not to give a corroboration warning.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals against conviction. It did not alter the convictions.