The Court of Appeal has upheld D.B.’s convictions for 36 indecent assaults involving two sisters, finding that none of the grounds raised made his trial unsafe.
D.B. was convicted by a Circuit Court jury on 25 October 2024 of 35 indecent assaults on A.A., the younger sister of his then-girlfriend, whom he later married. Those offences were found to have occurred between 1982 and 1987 in the family home, a shop and D.B.’s marital home. He was also convicted of one indecent assault on A.A.’s sister B.A. between 1988 and the end of 1991.
In its judgment of 17 July 2026, the Court of Appeal first rejected a complaint that the trial judge had wrongly prevented cross-examination of A.A. about childhood sexual abuse by a neighbouring farmer. The defence had suggested she might have confused or transferred details of that abuse to D.B. The appeal court found that theory speculative and unsupported by evidence.
D.B. also argued that the trial judge failed to tell jurors that evidence from A.A.’s relatives about earlier disclosures could support only the consistency of her account, not independently prove the assaults. The Court of Appeal accepted that the usual direction had not been given, but held that the omission did not result in a fundamental injustice when the trial was viewed as a whole.
The court also rejected a complaint about the trial judge asking, in front of the jury, whether the defence intended to call evidence. It said normal directions about an accused person’s right not to testify were sufficient.
A final ground concerned evidence from another sister, C.A., about a sexually inappropriate remark which she said D.B. made to her when she was young. The appeal court held that the evidence was directly relevant and was properly admitted.
The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The judgment does not state the sentence imposed on D.B.