CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Two appeals against conviction for the sexual abuse of children were dismissed. Although the judge should not have allowed the jury to return their verdicts piecemeal, that had not affected the overall safety of the convictions. However, in trials of sexual abuse cases involving multiple counts, trial judges should invite the jury not to return their verdicts until they had concluded their deliberations on all counts.

In a criminal case concerning historical sexual offences, the judge had not favoured the prosecution in his directions to the jury, and the appellate court was not left with any sense of unease about the safety of the convictions.

The Northern Ireland Public Prosecution Service had not erred in making a decision not to prosecute an alleged rape of a 14-year-old boy with moderate learning difficulties; there was a clear factual basis for the finding that there were insufficient grounds to mount a prosecution.

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.

A district judge had failed to appreciate when deciding to retain jurisdiction to prosecute a young offender in the youth court for child sex offences that an amendment to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.3B introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 s.53 was not in force when he made his decision.

In a high-profile case concerning historical sexual offences, the trial judge had not erred in her approach to pre-trial publicity, had properly summed up the defence case, and had given the jury proper directions as to the burden and standard of proof, lies and inconsistencies.

Although a judge had, without hearing submissions, given a Watson direction which deviated from the approved wording, the direction did not render a conviction for rape unsafe. Whether and when to give a direction was a matter for the judge’s discretion, provided that it was given in a way which did not put pressure on jurors.

An appellant who had faced a number of counts relating to offences arising out of the same sexual encounter had failed to establish that his conviction on two of those counts was rendered unsafe by the jury’s failure to reach a verdict on the remaining counts.