The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a person identified as C.C. against convictions for three counts of indecent assault, finding no impermissible error in the trial judge’s decision not to give the jury a corroboration warning.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Kennedy on 22 May 2020, concerned convictions recorded on 3 April 2017. The charges related to offences said to have occurred between 1977 and 1979. The complainant, born in 1963, alleged that C.C., identified in the judgment as his father, sexually abused him while he lived and worked at his father’s chip shop. One count also concerned alleged assaults in a caravan belonging to C.C.
The appeal focused on the trial judge’s refusal to give a corroboration warning. The appellant argued that inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts of dates and locations, and a further allegation concerning C.C.’s then partner that first appeared in a March 2017 statement, warranted a warning. The appellant also argued that the judge’s brief ruling did not show proper consideration of the evidence.
The Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that the decision was within the trial judge’s discretion. The prosecution said the jury had been made aware of inconsistencies and the absence of independent evidence, and could convict only if satisfied of the complainant’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court of Appeal said a trial judge should not give a corroboration warning as a matter of routine. There must be an evidential basis for one, and the decision is for the trial judge, whose discretion the appeal court will be slow to disturb unless it was based on an incorrect legal basis or was clearly wrong in fact.
The court described this as “something of a borderline case” and said the late allegation involving the appellant’s partner took the case “some distance”. It acknowledged that another judge might have exercised discretion differently. But the appeal court was not deciding how it would have ruled at trial; it had to determine whether the decision made was impermissible. It was not persuaded that it was.
The trial judge told the jury there was no independent evidence and highlighted discrepancies relied on by the defence. The appeal court stressed that this was not a corroboration warning. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the convictions undisturbed.