The Court of Appeal has dismissed A.M.’s appeal against a conviction for sexual assault, rejecting three grounds that challenged the fairness and safety of the trial. The conviction, entered on 13 December 2021, remains in place.
The case concerned an allegation that, during a visit in March 2014, A.M. entered the bedroom of his wife’s 12-year-old grandniece, got into bed with her and touched her inappropriately. A.M. was 60 at the time. The alleged incident was said to have occurred on an afternoon between 10 and 13 March, while A.M. and his wife were staying at the complainant’s family home for her confirmation. A.M. denied the allegation at trial.
The appeal was heard on grounds relating to counselling notes disclosed after conviction, Skype messages between A.M. and the complainant, and the trial judge’s direction to the jury about recent complaint evidence. Two other grounds initially filed were not pursued.
The notes recorded the complainant as saying that sexual abuse happened more than once. The Court of Appeal directed that she be asked about the entry. In a statement dated 23 January 2023, she denied saying this and maintained there had been one incident. She suggested the counsellor may have interpreted her account of later Skype messages as further abuse.
The court accepted that the notes were unknown at trial and could not reasonably have been obtained then. But it held they would not have had a material and important influence on the verdict, given the complainant’s repeated accounts of a single incident and the surrounding evidence. It was not persuaded the conviction was unsafe on this ground.
The court also rejected the challenge to admission of the Skype messages. It found they were relevant and necessary to explain the relationship between A.M. and the complainant and to give the jury a coherent account of the case. The court described the communications as inappropriate and said they showed the relationship as A.M. perceived it. It found no error in the trial judge’s summary of selected messages, noting that the jury had the full message thread as an exhibit.
On the jury direction, the court noted that the trial judge initially referred to complaint evidence, but later recharged the jury, as requested by the defence, that there was no recent complaint evidence to support the complainant’s credibility. In light of the cross-examination and that correction, the court concluded the jury had not been left with an incorrect impression.
The court rejected the grounds individually and cumulatively and dismissed the appeal. Its judgment was delivered on 11 July 2023.