A, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against conviction on two counts of sexual assault. The Appellant was tried on nine counts of various sexual offences allegedly committed against the daughter of his long-term partner ("the complainant") during four distinct incidents between June 2009 and September 2010. The trial took place before a jury at Crown Court, resulting in convictions on two counts and acquittals on the remaining seven. The Appellant was sentenced to three years' probation with additional sexual offences prevention conditions. The appeal challenges the safety of the convictions and the adequacy of the trial judge’s directions to the jury.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the guilty verdicts were inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts returned by the jury.
2. Whether the prosecution’s closing speech was unfair and prejudicial.
3. Whether the trial judge’s summing up was inadequate regarding the lack of independent evidence.
4. Whether the trial judge failed to give an adequate Makanjuola warning concerning the complainant’s evidence.
5. Whether the trial judge’s summing up was unbalanced in assessing the quality and reliability of the complainant’s evidence.
6. Whether the convictions were unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The guilty verdicts on some counts were inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on others, given the close connection between the alleged acts.
• The prosecution’s closing speech was unfair, focusing improperly on the manner of defence questioning and appealing to sympathy by referencing the complainant’s family life being "wrecked."
• The trial judge’s summing up failed to adequately address the lack of independent evidence supporting the complainant’s allegations.
• The trial judge did not provide a sufficient Makanjuola warning to the jury despite the complainant having made a false allegation during the course of the evidence.
• The summing up was unbalanced, not sufficiently cautioning the jury on the complainant’s credibility and inconsistencies in her evidence.
• The convictions were unsafe given the above deficiencies.

Crown's Arguments

• The verdicts were not inconsistent; a jury is entitled to convict on some counts while acquitting on others, as credibility is not a seamless robe.
• The prosecution’s closing speech was not unfair; it invited the jury to avoid sympathy and fairly consider the evidence.
• The trial judge properly directed the jury to consider each count separately and addressed the complainant’s evidence adequately.
• The trial judge’s use of the term "false" regarding the dropped allegation was justifiable and not challenged by the Crown.
• The convictions were safe and supported by evidence of differing quality across counts.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the appellant’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence and legal principles. It acknowledged that the jury was entitled to return verdicts on some counts while acquitting on others, as credibility assessments can vary across different facets of incidents. The Court referred to established case law confirming that inconsistent verdicts do not automatically render convictions unsafe.

Regarding the prosecution’s closing speech, the Court found that while some remarks were regrettable, the trial judge properly managed the issues, and the speech as a whole did not unfairly prejudice the jury.

The Court focused extensively on the adequacy of the trial judge’s directions to the jury, particularly the absence of a sufficiently clear and strong Makanjuola warning despite evidence that the complainant had made a serious false allegation which she later retracted. The Court emphasized the need for such warnings to be integrated into the review of evidence and expressed clearly to the jury the requirement for caution when assessing the complainant’s credibility.

The Court also noted the trial judge’s failure to properly instruct the jury on how to consider the complainant’s credibility across multiple counts, especially when the jury might reject parts of her evidence but accept others. The standard directions did not address the necessity for the jury to stand back and reassess their overall view of credibility before delivering verdicts on separate counts.

Because of these deficiencies in the trial judge’s charge, the Court concluded that the convictions on counts 2 and 4 could not be considered safe.

Holding and Implications

The Court QUASHED the convictions on counts 2 and 4 due to inadequate jury directions concerning the complainant’s credibility and the need for caution in light of false allegations and inconsistencies in evidence.

The Court indicated that it would hear submissions on whether a retrial should be ordered. No broader precedent was established beyond clarifying the necessity for clear and adequate directions to juries in cases involving inconsistent evidence and credibility issues, particularly in sexual offence trials.