The Court of Appeal has dismissed P. P.’s appeal against conviction, ruling that the counts involving three complainants did not have to be tried separately and that evidence from each complainant was admissible in the cases involving the others.
The appeal concerned convictions following a retrial on three counts in Bill WX 32A/2017. The court heard that the original indictment contained seven sexual assault counts involving four complainants. At the first trial, the Circuit Court severed two counts relating to one complainant. The remaining five counts, involving J, V and Y, were tried together. The jury convicted on one count, disagreed on three, and the trial judge directed a not guilty verdict on another. At the retrial on the three counts where the jury had disagreed, P. P. was found guilty on all three.
The complainants were nieces by marriage of P. P.; V and Y were sisters, and the judgment describes all three as cousins. They said the alleged assaults involved genital touching under their underwear, on occasions when they were on sleepovers with cousins.
P. P. argued that the counts should have been severed and that the evidence of the complainants should not have been admitted as system evidence. The appeal submissions pointed to differences in the alleged locations, times and ages of the complainants, and argued that family ties alone did not provide sufficient similarity. The prosecution submitted that severance was a matter for the trial judge’s discretion and that the trial judge had applied the relevant authorities. There was no appeal ground challenging the jury directions.
Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in People (DPP) v. Limen, the Court of Appeal said severance, admissibility and jury directions on cross-support are separate legal questions. It held that the trial judge could not be criticised for refusing to separate the counts. The offences were of a similar character under the indictment rules, and the court was not satisfied that trying them together had prejudiced or embarrassed the defence.
The court cited the allegations’ same nature, some similarities in their circumstances, and the absence of evidence of collusion sufficient to make any evidence inadmissible. It said the multiple allegations had at least some probative value, while the jury was responsible for assessing each count and the weight of any similarities or possible contamination.
The court was not satisfied that either appeal ground succeeded. It held that severance was not required and that the admissibility test was met, and dismissed the appeal. The decision concerns the appeal; the court did not retry the charges.