The Court of Appeal has quashed three indecent assault convictions against A.T., finding there was no evidence to support those charges for the periods and location specified. It dismissed the appeal on the remaining counts.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 29 February 2024, concerned an appeal against convictions following a 2022 jury trial in the Central Criminal Court. A.T. had been convicted of 30 counts of indecent assault relating to alleged abuse of his sister-in-law between April 1977 and May 1983. He received a four-year custodial sentence, with two years of post-release supervision.
A.T. appealed on three grounds: that the trial judge should have given the jury a corroboration warning; that the verdict was perverse; and that it was internally inconsistent. The Court of Appeal rejected the first ground, finding the trial judge had acted within his discretion. It said the alleged inconsistencies and gaps in the complainant’s recollection were matters for the jury, and did not establish the kind of concrete concern about inherent reliability that would require a corroboration warning. The trial judge had given a warning about the risks of dealing with an old case.
The court also considered confusion over the jury’s announced verdicts on counts 42 and 44. Not guilty verdicts were announced on 5 May 2022, followed the next day by guilty verdicts. The trial judge checked the written issue paper, which recorded guilty verdicts, and the defence accepted that record at the time. The appeal court found the discrepancy had been addressed during the trial and did not require intervention.
However, the court found the evidence did not support convictions on counts 42, 44 and 46. Those charges alleged assaults at House A during periods in 1980–81, 1981–82 and 1982–83. The evidence was that A.T. and the complainant’s sister had moved to House B in 1979, and that after acquiring a car he stopped travelling by bus to House A for dinner. The complainant described assaults at House A while he was visiting for meals, but the appeal court found no evidence of further abuse there after those visits ceased.
The court said the three convictions were against the weight of the evidence and could not stand. It found evidence supported the convictions on the corresponding car-related counts 41, 43 and 45, and rejected the claim that the verdicts were inconsistent. It allowed the appeal only on counts 42, 44 and 46, quashed the convictions and sentences on those counts, and said there was no basis for a retrial.