Creaney, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against conviction following verdicts of guilty on all 19 counts returned by a jury on 7 March 2014 at Craigavon Crown Court sitting at Armagh. The charges involved 7 counts of indecent assault on a female contrary to section 52 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and 12 counts of gross indecency with or towards a child contrary to section 22 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. The complainants were three female children who lived in the same neighbourhood as the appellant. The alleged offending took place during the period 2002 to 2004. The appellant was in his late 40s at the time, and the complainants were aged between 7 and 11. The offences involved various incidents of sexual abuse occurring in the appellant’s home and nearby locations. The appellant denied all allegations both in police interview and at trial.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the learned trial judge's charge to the jury was balanced and impartial, particularly in relation to the presentation of the defence case.
2. Whether the convictions were safe, considering the evidence and any potential issues such as collusion or inconsistencies in the complainants' accounts.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge's charge was unbalanced and favoured the prosecution.
• There was substantial evidence of collusion between the complainants, especially regarding the mention of a proprietary aftershave brand, which was first disclosed late in the evidence.
• Some allegations were incredible or lacked corroboration, such as the appellant giving cigarettes to the children and the aftershave incident.
• The judge failed to adequately present certain defence points, including the timing of furniture purchase and the appellant's care of his grandson during the relevant period.
• The court should have a significant sense of unease about the safety of the convictions based on these factors.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The case was properly before the jury, and no application was made to withdraw it due to insufficiency of evidence.
• The learned trial judge gave a fair and balanced charge, carefully highlighting inconsistencies and issues of credibility.
• The jury had the advantage of assessing witness credibility firsthand, which supports the safety of the verdicts.
• Evidence of the appellant’s grandson being cared for during the day was likely fabricated as it was not mentioned in police interviews.
• Any issues of collusion or inconsistency were properly put before the jury for consideration.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R. v. Lawrence [1982] A.C. 510	Guidance on the content and structure of a judge’s direction to the jury, including summarising evidence and issues fairly.	The court cited this authority to outline the requirements for a balanced jury charge and to assess whether the trial judge met these standards.
Bentley (deceased) [2001] 1 Cr App R 21	Requirement that trial judges must present the defence case impartially and avoid inappropriate sarcasm or extravagant comments.	Used to evaluate whether the trial judge’s charge was even-handed and impartial towards the defence.
Nelson [1997] Crim LR 234	Limits on the judge’s comments so as not to withdraw the issue of guilt or innocence from the jury.	Referenced in considering whether the judge’s robust comments on the evidence were appropriate.
R v Evans (DJ) 91 Cr App R 173; R v D [2009] Crim LR 591; R v Miller [2011] Crim LR 79	Judicial warnings appropriate in sexual abuse cases to assist the jury in understanding delays in reporting due to shame or vulnerability.	The court noted the trial judge’s appropriate warnings to the jury about such issues.
R v Pollock [2004] NICA 34	Approach for Court of Appeal in appeals against conviction focusing on whether the verdict is unsafe and avoiding re-trying the case.	The court applied the Pollock test to determine if there was a significant sense of unease about the verdict’s safety.
Northern Ireland Railways Company Limited v Tweed (1982) NIJB 15	The trial judge’s advantage in assessing witness credibility.	Used to emphasize the jury’s and trial judge’s advantage in witnessing evidence firsthand and assessing credibility.
Biogen Inc. v. Medeva Plc. [1997] RPC 1	Recognition of the imperceptible advantage of those who see and hear witnesses in assessing credibility.	Supported the principle that the jury’s verdict should be respected absent a significant sense of unease.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the trial judge’s charge to the jury, referencing established authorities on the requirements for jury directions. It found that the trial judge had set out the evidence of the complainants and the defence clearly, identifying inconsistencies and warning the jury to exercise caution in relying on the complainants’ evidence. The judge also addressed the defence case, including the appellant’s evidence and cross-examination points, ensuring a balanced presentation.

The court acknowledged the appellant’s points about potential unaddressed defence matters, such as the timing of furniture purchase and the babysitting of the grandson, but concluded these were sufficiently covered or their omission did not affect the safety of the convictions. The evidence of collusion was considered, but the court found no persuasive indication that the complainants had colluded to the extent that would undermine the verdicts. Differences in recollections among complainants were seen as typical in historic abuse cases and properly highlighted by the trial judge.

Applying the Pollock test, the court assessed whether it had a significant sense of unease about the safety of the convictions. It found that the jury had the opportunity to assess witness credibility directly and that the inconsistencies and issues raised did not render the verdict unsafe. The court emphasized that it was not re-trying the case but evaluating the safety of the verdict based on the trial evidence.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction, holding that the convictions were safe. The trial judge’s charge was found to be balanced and appropriate, and the evidence supported the jury’s verdicts. The decision directly upholds the convictions on all counts and does not establish any new legal precedent beyond reaffirming established principles regarding jury directions and appellate review of conviction safety.