POLICE INTERVIEWS

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.

A conviction for sexual assault was safe where an offender’s original solicitors had failed to obtain medical evidence showing that he was a diabetic and suggesting that his medical condition affected the answers he had given in interview, during which he had made partial admissions. The jury had been persuaded by the evidence the complainant gave, who had no reason to have lied.

A taxi driver’s conviction for a single offence of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old passenger was not unsafe where the driver had been suffering from undiagnosed diabetes at the time of his police interview and, unbeknown to all, might have been hypoglycaemic. On the facts, the driver’s answers in police interview could not be regarded as having made any difference to the jury being satisfied that the girl was telling the truth.

On the facts of the case, the defendant’s conviction for rape was not rendered unsafe by the judge’s failure, after acceding to a request from the jury for the replaying of the complainant’s ABE interview, to warn the jury not to place too much emphasis on what they had seen during the recording since they had not also viewed, at the same time, the evidence of any other witness, in particular the defendant.

An offender’s convictions for historic offences of rape, buggery, attempted rape, indecent assault and murder were deemed safe, as the judge had given the jury adequate directions as to the dangers of delay and its effect on the evidence.

A jury’s findings on a trial of the facts that a defendant with severe learning difficulties who was unfit to plead had committed two offences of rape were safe, notwithstanding the fact that an extract of the defendant’s police interview had been wrongly admitted as evidence.

An appeal against convictions on 12 counts of sexual assault by penetration, four counts of rape and a count of unlawful wounding was dismissed where a judge had been correct not to treat as evidence the offender’s admissions made in a written statement and police interview as the prosecution had only relied on them to a very limited extent.