The Court of Appeal has dismissed G.M.’s appeal against conviction on 16 counts of rape, upholding the trial judge’s decisions on a screen for the complainant, background evidence and the jury’s corroboration warning.
The convictions followed a jury trial held from 24 October to 8 November 2019. The complainant was G.M.’s former wife. Other rape and indecent assault counts on the indictment were not part of the appeal; G.M. had pleaded guilty to those counts.
The appeal court rejected the challenge to a screen placed between the complainant and G.M. while she gave evidence. It said the trial judge had an evidential basis for finding the measure necessary in the interests of justice, considering the nature and circumstances of the case and the complainant’s personal circumstances. Expert testimony was not required in this case. The court noted that expert evidence may be required where an application relies substantially on mental health issues, but said that was not the position here. The screen did not remove G.M.’s right to cross-examine the complainant.
The court also upheld the admission of specified evidence about alleged violence in the relationship before, during and after the charged period, up to the complainant’s departure from the family home in 2009. It found the evidence relevant and necessary to help the jury understand the relationship and the complainant’s account. The trial judge had excluded other proposed background material, including allegations and events after 2009, and directed the jury not to use the admitted evidence to infer guilt from propensity.
The final appeal ground concerned the corroboration warning. The trial judge gave a warning that there was no corroboration and that the jury should take care when assessing the complainant’s evidence. After a defence request, the judge referred to additional allegations said to have emerged at trial concerning 2008 and 2009. The Court of Appeal held that the warning was clear and adequate, and that the judge was entitled to base it on those late-emerging allegations rather than the other matters raised by the defence.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal did not overturn the convictions.