REGINA v Stephenson

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Canterbury of historic sexual abuse offences involving a teenage girl who lived in the same household. The allegations related to events between 1995 and 1997. The complainant, born in 1981, had a troubled upbringing marked by parental separation, domestic violence, and substance abuse by her mother. She lived intermittently in a household headed by Mr and Mrs Ralph, where the Appellant also resided as a lodger and was involved in an affair with Mrs Ralph. The complainant alleged a sexual relationship with the Appellant beginning during her first stay in the household and continuing throughout a second extended stay after her mother’s death. The Appellant denied any sexual contact.

The indictment included counts of indecency with a child and three counts of rape, corresponding to the complainant’s ages of 13, 14, and 15. Some counts were struck out due to legislative amendments. The complainant did not report the abuse until 2004, several years after the last alleged incident, during which time she was undergoing psychological therapy.

The Appellant’s appeal challenged the trial judge’s refusal to allow cross-examination of the complainant on her sexual history and prior bad character evidence, contending this limited his ability to argue that the allegations were false and the result of her psychological condition.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to allow cross-examination of the complainant about her sexual history, specifically regarding two men other than the Appellant, under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence of the complainant’s prior cautions and conviction under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to challenge her credibility.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended he was wrongly prevented from cross-examining the complainant about her sexual history with two men, Darryl Manners and David Ralph, to show a pattern of false allegations linked to her psychological condition.
• He argued that the complainant’s prior cautions and conviction for dishonesty-related offences were relevant to challenge her truthfulness and should have been admitted as bad character evidence.
• At appeal, the Appellant’s counsel suggested that the sexual relationship with David Ralph may have been more extensive than initially presented and that the complainant might have misattributed some sexual conduct with Ralph to the Appellant.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent maintained that the trial judge correctly limited cross-examination to matters strictly relevant and properly grounded under section 41, noting no basis to suggest the allegations against Manners or Ralph were false.
• It was argued that the complainant’s prior cautions and conviction were minor, remote in time, and did not significantly affect her credibility regarding the allegations against the Appellant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the scope and basis of the application to cross-examine the complainant under section 41. It emphasized that cross-examination about other false allegations is permitted only if there is a proper foundation to suggest those allegations are false. The application before the trial judge concerned only two men, Manners and David Ralph. The evidence did not support any suggestion that the allegations against these men were false; indeed, the incident involving Manners was accepted as true, and the complainant’s brief sexual encounter with Ralph was not shown to be fabricated.

The court rejected the Appellant’s expanded argument at appeal that the sexual relationship with Ralph was more extensive or that the complainant had confused the Appellant’s conduct with Ralph’s, noting that this was not the basis of the original application and lacked evidential support.

Regarding the complainant’s prior cautions and conviction, the court found that the trial judge had misdirected himself by applying the Hanson precedent too rigidly. Nevertheless, the court concluded that these matters were of limited probative value given the complainant’s chaotic background and the time elapsed. Their admission would not have materially affected the jury’s assessment of credibility or the safety of the conviction.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal.

The trial judge’s rulings refusing cross-examination under section 41 and excluding bad character evidence under section 100 were upheld as correct or, where misdirected, not prejudicial. The decision confirms the principle that cross-examination on sexual history is strictly limited to relevant and properly grounded matters and that minor, remote prior convictions of a complainant do not necessarily warrant admission if they lack significant probative value. No new precedent was established; the ruling maintains the careful balance between fair trial rights and protection of complainants in sexual offence cases.