CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

A judge had not erred in refusing a late application to admit expert evidence as to an appellant’s intellectual ability to assess age at his trial for child sex offences. The assessment of age was not a particularly intellectual process and the appellant’s own evidence had been that he had no difficulty with judging age.

At a fact-finding hearing relating to the death and possible sexual assault of a child, the court highlighted difficulties with the approach to police disclosure outlined in the 2013 Protocol and Good Practice Model and made detailed suggestions for new procedural guidelines, subject to formal review by the President of the Family Division.

A conviction for sexual offences against a child was safe, as medical evidence adduced as fresh had not permitted confident review of a previous diagnosis so as to describe it as ill-founded; taken at its highest it neither supported nor refuted the allegations against the offender. The defence was still that any abuse was perpetrated by another and the jury had decided on the non-medical evidence.

An offender’s conviction for offences of sexual acitivity with a child was not rendered unsafe by the judge’s failure, after allowing a video recording of the complainant’s evidence-in-chief to be replayed to the jury when they had retired to consider their verdict, to expressly warn the jury against giving the replay video evidence a disproportionate weight.

A conviction for sexual assault was safe where a judge had refused to grant an adjournment to allow the defence time to contact a witness mentioned by the victim for the first time in her evidence in chief. Instead the judge had admitted hearsay evidence which indicated that the witness would not have been able to support the victim’s case.

Alleged failures in pre-trial investigation procedure did not affect the safety of the convictions of soldiers found guilty of kidnapping, sexual assault, theft and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Although a police interview of a mentally disordered victim had contained leading questions, the judge had not erred in admitting it at a trial for sexual assault of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice as he had been satisfied that the victim’s main account had been given in response to open questions and a reasonable jury could conclude that that account was credible.

The fact that an intermediary had provided physical and emotional support to a vulnerable and distressed complainant during a rape trial did not result in a serious risk of unfairness to the defendant. Both counsel and the judge had warned the jury to approach the complainant’s evidence untrammelled by sympathy.

An appellant’s conviction for rape was safe where there was substantial evidence before the jury that the victim was intoxicated and incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse with him. There was no presumption that the conviction was unsafe because the judge did not give a good character direction.