The Court of Appeal has dismissed M.S.’s appeal against six rape convictions, finding that the trial judge was entitled to tell jurors that certain criticisms of the complainant’s account had not been put to her during the trial.
M.S. was convicted in the Central Criminal Court on 16 May 2022 after a five-day trial. The convictions concerned S3, one of three granddaughters identified in the judgment as complainants. M.S. had pleaded guilty to sexual assault counts involving all three. He denied the six rape counts concerning S3.
The appeal focused on the trial judge’s direction to the jury. M.S. argued that it suggested the defence was obliged to put matters to S3 in cross-examination and left jurors with the impression that defence counsel had acted improperly.
In her closing speech, defence counsel asked jurors to consider that S3’s account did not refer to pain from penetration or to M.S.’s weight on top of her, and that when asked where she was sore, S3 referred to her hands. Counsel also pointed to the absence of references to an erect penis or ejaculation. The prosecution objected that these criticisms had not been put to S3, giving her an opportunity to respond.
The trial judge told jurors that those submissions had not been put to S3, but that they should weigh all the evidence and decide what significance to attach to it. The Court of Appeal said the judge’s comments were “particularly restrained” and could not be criticised. It found nothing impermissible in the defence closing speech and said the judge was within her rights to draw attention to the fact that the criticisms had not been raised with S3.
The court dismissed what it described as, in effect, the sole ground of appeal. The six convictions therefore remain in place. The judgment does not address the separate ground initially lodged, which alleged that the verdict was perverse and against the weight of the evidence.