Introduction

The case of Roberts v [2021] EWCA Crim 1672 adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on October 19, 2021, addresses significant issues surrounding the admissibility of hearsay evidence in sexual offence cases. The appellant, aged 86, a retired clergyman convicted of multiple counts of indecent assault spanning over 25 years, challenges his conviction primarily on the grounds of the trial judge's decision to admit hearsay evidence. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the Judgment, examining the Court of Appeal's comprehensive analysis and reaffirmation of the initial trial's proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant, Reverend Roberts, was convicted in the Crown Court at Liverpool of nine counts of indecent assault under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. His conviction was primarily based on the admissions from three complainants, with the first complainant's testimony being in the form of hearsay, as he had died before the trial. Roberts appealed, contending that the admission of hearsay evidence was flawed and prejudicial. Additionally, he sought to introduce fresh evidence in the form of a letter purportedly from the first complainant. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original conviction and the admissibility of the hearsay evidence, while rejecting the introduction of the fresh evidence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment references key precedents that shape the admissibility of hearsay evidence and character evidence in criminal proceedings. Notably:

• R v Riat [2013] 1 CrAppR 2: Established a structured approach to assessing the admissibility of hearsay evidence, emphasizing the necessity of balancing reliability and the ability to test the evidence.
• R v Ibrahim [2012] EWCA Crim 837: Highlighted the importance of assessing whether hearsay evidence is "potentially safely reliable," setting a stringent standard for admissibility.

These precedents were instrumental in guiding the Court of Appeal's evaluation of the trial judge's decisions regarding hearsay and character evidence.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the trial judge's reasoning, confirming that the latter adhered strictly to legal principles governing hearsay evidence. The judge applied the two-step test from R v Riat, ensuring that the hearsay evidence was potentially safely reliable and that it was practicable for the jury to assess its reliability. The presence of corroborative evidence, including Reverend Lewis's testimony and the appellant's prior convictions, bolstered the reliability of the hearsay statements. Additionally, the Court emphasized the trial judge's discretion in managing complex evidence and determined that the balance struck was appropriate and lawful.

Impact

This Judgment reaffirms the judiciary's stance on the stringent criteria required for admitting hearsay evidence, especially in sensitive sexual offence cases. By upholding the trial judge's decision, the Court of Appeal reinforces the importance of a balanced approach that weighs both the reliability of evidence and the practicalities of its evaluation by a jury. This precedent will guide future cases in assessing the admissibility of hearsay evidence, particularly in scenarios where victims are unavailable to testify.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Hearsay Evidence

Definition: Hearsay evidence refers to statements made outside the courtroom that are presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

In This Case: The first complainant died before the trial, and his recorded statement (ABE interview) was introduced as hearsay.

Potentially Safely Reliable

This legal standard assesses whether the hearsay evidence can be deemed reliable enough to be considered by a jury without the opportunity for cross-examination.

Bad Character Evidence

Definition: This involves introducing evidence of a defendant's previous misconduct to suggest a propensity to commit similar offences.

In This Case: The appellant's prior convictions were presented to support the credibility of the current allegations.

Section 125 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Allows the trial judge to order a discharge or acquittal if ongoing issues make it impossible to continue a fair trial.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Roberts v [2021] EWCA Crim 1672 stands as a robust affirmation of the procedural and substantive safeguards in place for admitting hearsay evidence in criminal trials. By meticulously upholding the trial judge's rulings, the Court underscores the delicate balance between ensuring fair trial rights for the accused and facilitating the judicial process in cases where witness testimony is compromised by death or other factors. This Judgment not only validates the integrity of the original trial but also provides clarity on the application of precedents governing hearsay and character evidence, thereby shaping the landscape for future adjudications in similar contexts.