The Court of Appeal dismissed R.A.’s appeal against his convictions, ruling that the trial judge’s decision not to give the jury a corroboration warning had not been shown to rest on an incorrect legal basis or to be clearly wrong in fact.
The court, comprising Birmingham, Sheehan and Mahon JJ., delivered its judgment on 4 March 2016. The appeal concerned only the refusal to give the warning. R.A. had been convicted in the Central Criminal Court on 2 May 2014 of attempted rape, several counts of sexual assault and an offence relating to restricting a child’s liberty for sexual exploitation. He received an 11-year prison term for attempted rape and four years on the other counts, with the final two years suspended.
The judgment said the complainant, identified as J.C., testified to a series of alleged incidents between 2007 and April 2010, when she was 12 at the time the incidents were said to have begun. The court summarized her account, which included allegations of sexual touching, an attempted rape and an incident in which her wrists were tied with a belt. R.A. gave evidence at trial and denied the allegations.
A friend, identified as C.D., had been at a sleepover in late December 2008 or early January 2009. C.D.’s written statement, read to the jury, said she remembered the sleepover but did not remember anything unusual or anything between J.C. and her stepfather. The defence relied particularly on this statement in seeking a corroboration warning. The prosecution also presented evidence that a young man of J.C.’s age had received a recent complaint from her.
After the judge completed the jury charge, defence counsel requested a warning. The trial judge refused, saying there was “nothing exceptional” about the case and that inconsistencies between witnesses did not take it outside the usual approach. Earlier, while addressing recent complaint evidence, the judge had told the jury it was not independent corroborative evidence and noted there was no evidence of the kind of corroboration he described, such as bruising or injuries.
The Court of Appeal said the defence had argued both that the circumstances required a warning and that the judge had applied an overly restrictive test by treating exceptional circumstances as necessary. It considered the judge’s brief remarks in the context of a request made after the charge, when the jury had been sent to deliberate. The court said the judge had most likely meant that warnings were not routine and required factors taking a case outside the ordinary.
The court reiterated that whether to give a corroboration warning was for the trial judge’s discretion, and that appellate intervention was limited to decisions based on an incorrect legal basis or clearly wrong in fact. It held that neither ground had been established and dismissed the appeal.