R v Watts

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from the conviction of the Appellant, a then part-time care worker at a residential care home in North Devon, before His Honour Judge Cottle and a jury at Exeter Crown Court. The Appellant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault against four profoundly disabled female residents of the care home, all suffering from mental disorders within the meaning of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The complainants were wheelchair bound with severe physical and cognitive impairments, including cerebral palsy and acquired brain injury. The Appellant was 58 years old at trial, had no previous convictions, and had evidence supporting his good character.

The indictment included one count (Count 1) based on direct eyewitness testimony alleging sexual touching of one complainant's breast, and multiple other counts involving non-penetrative and penetrative sexual acts against the other three complainants. The jury convicted the Appellant on several counts involving non-penetrative sexual touching but acquitted him on all counts alleging penetration. The Appellant appealed against the convictions other than Count 1.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the evidence against the Appellant, particularly that of the three disabled complainants, was so weak or unreliable that the charges should not have been allowed to go to the jury.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury regarding the assessment of the complainants' evidence and the use of propensity evidence from Count 1.
3. Whether the summing up was unbalanced and failed to properly direct the jury on the care required in assessing the evidence of vulnerable witnesses.
4. Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature of the convictions and the vulnerability of the victims.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The evidence from the three disabled complainants was either non-existent or so weak and unreliable that no reasonable jury could safely convict.
• Failure to properly assess and psychologically examine the complainants before Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interviews, including exploring their understanding of sexual matters and truthfulness.
• The interviews lacked proper use of intermediaries and rapport building, leading to unreliable evidence.
• The summing up failed to properly instruct the jury on how to evaluate the evidence from vulnerable witnesses and omitted points favorable to the Appellant.
• Specific allegations made by complainants were demonstrably false or the result of confabulation and suggestibility.
• The verdicts were unsafe and the jury improperly relied on propensity evidence from Count 1 to convict on other counts.
• The sentence imposed was excessive and did not properly reflect the nature of the convictions, which involved non-penetrative touching.

Prosecution's Arguments

• Special measures adopted enabled the complainants to give evidence safely and access the criminal justice system.
• The evidence, including the direct eyewitness testimony and ABE interviews, was sufficient and produced safe convictions.
• The jury was properly directed on the use of propensity evidence and on assessing the reliability of witnesses.
• All criticisms of the evidence and methodology were presented to the jury, which was properly equipped to assess reliability.
• The primacy of the jury’s role in assessing witness reliability must be respected, even in complex cases involving vulnerable witnesses.
• The sentence was appropriate considering the vulnerability of the victims, breach of trust, and public revulsion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the evidence and the special measures employed to enable the complainants, who had severe communication difficulties, to give evidence. The court acknowledged the challenges posed by the disabilities of the complainants and the innovative use of communication aids and intermediaries. It accepted that the jury was properly directed on the use of propensity evidence from Count 1 and cautioned against overreliance on it.

The court reviewed the methodology of the Achieving Best Evidence interviews, noting the absence of pre-interview psychological assessments and limited rapport building but found that the jury was equipped to assess the reliability of the evidence, especially with expert testimony addressing suggestibility, compliance, and confabulation.

The court rejected the Appellant's argument that the evidence was so weak as to warrant withdrawal from the jury, emphasizing the primacy of the jury's role in assessing witness reliability, including in cases involving vulnerable witnesses. It found the verdicts were consistent and reflected a careful consideration of the evidence, distinguishing between non-penetrative and penetrative allegations.

Regarding sentencing, the court considered the Sentencing Guidelines and concluded that the original sentence was excessive relative to the convictions for non-penetrative offences. It recalibrated the sentence to reflect the nature of the convictions and the totality principle.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction, affirming that the jury's verdicts were safe and consistent with the evidence and proper directions given. The court emphasized the importance of respecting the jury's role in assessing the reliability of evidence, especially from vulnerable witnesses assisted by special measures.

The court ALLOWED the appeal against sentence, quashing the original 12-year sentence and substituting a total sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, reflecting the convictions for non-penetrative sexual offences and the vulnerability of the victims.

The decision clarifies the application of special measures legislation in cases involving profoundly disabled complainants and reinforces the principle that competence and reliability are distinct, with the jury retaining the primary role in assessing evidence reliability. No new precedent was set beyond applying existing principles to a novel factual context.