The Court of Appeal has dismissed P.K.’s appeal against three convictions for sexual assault, finding that the trial judge’s interventions and jury charge did not make the trial unfair or demonstrate objective bias.
P.K. was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on 16 December 2017 of three counts under section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. He was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison, with the final two and a half years suspended on terms. The appeal concerned those convictions.
The convictions arose from three video clips found on a mobile phone seized from P.K.’s flat under a search warrant in December 2014. The clips, dated 5, 8 and 10 November 2014, showed a male hand exploring the complainant’s anal area and, at times, digitally penetrating her. The Court of Appeal said she appeared not to move in the videos. At trial, P.K. denied drugging her and argued the recordings were made with her knowledge and consent. The jury found him guilty on all three counts.
P.K. argued that the trial judge displayed objective bias, interrupted and made adverse comments during his evidence, and gave an unbalanced charge to the jury. The prosecution submitted that the judge’s actions were justified by the context and were aimed at preserving a fair trial.
The appeal court examined the challenged exchanges in context. It concluded that the judge’s interventions were restrained and directed at clarifying evidence, addressing inaccuracies or asking P.K. to answer questions. It also rejected the claim that the judge improperly directed the prosecution’s handling of discrepancies between the parties’ phone records, finding that the prosecution retained the decision on how to address them.
The court found that the jury charge, considered as a whole, fairly summarised the prosecution and defence cases. It rejected the argument that the judge’s reference to some of P.K.’s evidence as “tainted with impropriety” discredited his evidence, explaining that the comment concerned evidence on matters not put to prosecution witnesses. The court said credibility remained for the jury to assess.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction. The judgment notes that the jury had been unable to agree on other counts; those counts were not the convictions challenged in this appeal.