The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by P.K. against convictions for two sexual assaults and upheld the convictions. It also refused his application to add a ground of appeal and introduce evidence about a family confrontation that occurred more than two years after the trial.
A jury unanimously convicted P.K. on 11 July 2012 of two sexual assaults committed in January or February 2007. The complainant was a 15-year-old girl and the niece of P.K.’s wife. He received concurrent 18-month prison sentences and was in custody from 13 July 2012 until he was admitted to bail on 16 May 2013.
The appeal concerned evidence from a psychiatrist, the trial judge’s refusal to give the jury a corroboration warning, and the judge’s reference to P.K. as “the bold Freddie” while summarising the defence case. The Court of Appeal said the defence had raised the complainant’s psychiatric care and self-harming history in cross-examination. It was therefore reasonable for the prosecution to establish when she first received psychiatric care and the recorded reason for an acute admission in 2009. The psychiatrist did not testify that abuse had in fact occurred or that the complainant’s allegations were reliable.
The court said a corroboration warning was a matter for the trial judge’s discretion, and that the issue should normally be raised before the jury is charged and before closing speeches. It found no evidential basis requiring a warning in this case and no indication that the judge had applied the wrong legal approach. The appeal court concluded that the refusal to give a warning did not make the verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory.
On the “bold Freddie” remark, the court said judges should avoid disrespectful or disparaging language about an accused person. But it found that, in context, the judge was paraphrasing the defence argument about the complainant’s continued contact with P.K. and his family after the alleged incidents. The court called the wording unusually informal but concluded it did not taint the trial or make the outcome unsafe.
P.K. also sought to introduce evidence about an alleged confrontation on 1 October 2014 between his wife and the complainant’s aunt, who had given recent complaint evidence at trial. The court held that the alleged exchange, occurring more than two years after the trial, was too remote to admit and refused the application.