The Court of Appeal has dismissed TV’s appeal against his convictions for 25 sexual offences, rejecting all grounds raised against the trial process. The judgment concerned the conviction appeal only; a separate appeal against sentence was not addressed.
A jury at the Central Criminal Court convicted TV of 18 offences of rape under common law and statute, and seven offences of rape under section 4(1) of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. Concurrent 15-year sentences had been imposed on each count, running from 18 June 2015.
The prosecution case included allegations that the offences occurred between 2008 and 2012, when the complainant, TV’s daughter, was aged between seven and 11. The judgment records that she disclosed in 2012 that her father had sexually assaulted her. The allegations included repeated abuse, said to have occurred mostly in the family car.
TV challenged the trial judge’s decision to admit three video-recorded interviews with the complainant. His appeal argued that interviewers had introduced information from unrecorded clarification meetings, potentially influencing her account, and that material from earlier interviews affected later ones. The trial judge admitted the recordings after viewing them and considering whether their use would risk unfairness.
The Court of Appeal said the first interview’s prompt could arguably have breached the advisory good-practice guidelines when considered alone. It found, however, that the prompt had to be assessed in the context of the interviews as a whole. The court accepted the trial judge’s assessment that the complainant gave a free-flowing account and that the prompt did not taint the interviews. It also found no error in showing her the first two recordings before the third interview.
The court rejected a further challenge concerning the complainant’s reliability, the detail of the counts and the time elapsed before cross-examination. It said her evidence included both clear recollections and occasions when she could not recall details. The jury had heard detailed cross-examination and had been directed to consider the possible effects of age, elapsed time and suggestibility, and to proceed cautiously.
The court said assessing the witness’s reliability was properly a matter for the jury. It noted that the jury returned not-guilty verdicts on some counts and that the trial judge directed further not-guilty verdicts on others. Having rejected all grounds of appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal.