The Court of Appeal has dismissed E.C.’s appeal against 85 convictions for sexual offences involving his three children, identified in the judgment as J, A and K. The court found the trial satisfactory and the convictions safe.
The convictions were returned by a jury in the Central Criminal Court on 20 August 2010, after a 32-day trial. They comprised 32 counts of sexual assault, 17 counts of oral rape and 36 counts of vaginal rape. E.C. received concurrent sentences ranging from three and a half to five years for sexual assaults and from 10 years to life imprisonment for rape offences.
The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which delivered judgment on 12 May 2016. Two of E.C.’s 12 original grounds were abandoned, and the court considered the remaining 10. The grounds challenged, among other matters, refusals to adjourn the trial, jury directions on corroboration, the handling of evidence about a red couch, decisions not to direct acquittals, and permission for K to testify by video link.
The appeal court found that the defence had sufficient time to prepare and identified no actual prejudice from the refusal to adjourn on that basis. It did find that the judge who refused a further adjournment over adverse media coverage had erred by focusing on the public interest in proceeding rather than whether an ongoing risk to a fair trial remained. However, the appeal court concluded that more than a year had passed since the article complained of, no evidence showed that further delay was needed, and the trial that took place was fair. The jury had been directed to disregard media coverage and other outside influences.
The court also rejected the challenges to the corroboration directions. It held that evidence from J’s foster mother about his condition and fear of using the toilet when he entered her care could support his account, and that K’s evidence could potentially corroborate A’s only if the jury accepted K’s account beyond reasonable doubt. It said the trial judge had fairly summarised the conflicting evidence about the couch, and that the alleged inconsistencies in the complainants’ evidence were matters for the jury to assess.
The court upheld the decision to allow K to give evidence by video link, finding it was within the trial judge’s lawful discretion in light of the psychiatric evidence and the applicable statute. Having rejected every ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction.