CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION

Convictions for sexual offences were safe despite the fact that material about the complainant had not been disclosed to the defence, because the picture of the complainant put before the jury was nevertheless a sufficiently accurate one.

Although the prosecution’s failure to disclose to a defendant certain evidence casting doubt upon the credibility of the complainant in his rape trial was deplorable, the evidence was not so significant as to have affected the safety of the rape convictions.

Undisclosed historic material from the police and social services which included information regarding previous sexual allegations made by a rape victim that had not been pursued because of concerns expressed by professionals regarding her credibility did not significantly undermine the victim’s credibility so as to affect the safety of the offender’s conviction.

Where the convictions of two men for unconnected sexual offences involving the same victim had been quashed, but only one of the men was paid compensation under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.133, the secretary of state had not acted illegally or irrationally in his application of developing case law. The court surveyed the meaning of “miscarriage of justice” in s.133 of the Act in the light of those cases.

In change of law cases it was not open to the Criminal Cases Review Commission lawfully to apply a policy that it was under no obligation to have regard to the practice of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and accordingly just as the court would not normally extend time in such cases, a conviction should not normally be referred on the basis of a change of law.