The Court of Appeal has dismissed JMcM’s appeal against his conviction on 34 sexual offence counts, finding no merit in any of the three grounds raised.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy on 11 July 2024, records that the appellant was convicted on 13 March 2023 of nine counts of sexual assault, eight counts of rape under the 1981 Act and 17 counts of rape under the 1990 Act. The complainant alleged that she was abused by the appellant between the ages of eight and 11. Her evidence was that she regularly visited his home, including for weekend and holiday sleepovers.
The appeal challenged the admission of recent complaint evidence from the complainant’s mother, the trial judge’s refusal to give the jury a corroboration warning, and the judge’s treatment of medical evidence in her charge to the jury.
On the complaint evidence, the Court of Appeal said the appellant did not press the ground strongly. The complainant had made disclosures to her mother and social worker on the same day. The court said multiple complaints may be admitted when the relevant legal criteria are met, and found that the trial judge had considered the proposed evidence and acted within her discretion. It also said the mother’s complaint contained more detail than the disclosure to the social worker and did not cause identifiable prejudice to the appellant.
The appellant argued that medical evidence showing the complainant’s hymen was normal made her account unreliable and required a corroboration warning. The court described the doctor’s findings as neutral: the examination took place too long after the alleged incidents to determine whether there had previously been an injury, and the doctor said the findings did not rule out child sexual abuse. The court held that the evidence did not require a warning and found no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s discretionary decision.
The final ground concerned the judge’s summing-up. The appellant argued that it did not sufficiently highlight the defence contention about the normal hymen. The appeal court noted that no requisition had been made after the charge and said an unraised point could be argued only where a fundamental injustice resulted from a substantial error or oversight. It found that the judge had addressed the doctor’s evidence in detail and was not required to repeat counsel’s submission. The court also said the doctor had not testified that a normal hymen was less likely in the circumstances alleged.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The judgment does not address sentence or any separate appeal against sentence.