R v PR

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted on 30 January 2009 in the Crown Court at The City after a trial before Judge Khokhar and a jury, on 24 counts relating to sexual offences (indecent assault and incest) against his two daughters. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The application for leave to appeal against conviction was referred to the full court by a single judge. At the hearing before the appellate court, full argument was heard and leave was granted to treat the matter as a full appeal. The Registrar identified errors in sentencing on two counts, which required correction if the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The complainants, the Appellant's daughters, were anonymised in accordance with statutory protections. The offences spanned multiple family residences and business premises over periods from 1980 to 1993 for one daughter and 1980 to 1986 for the other. The offences included indecent assault and sexual intercourse, with certain counts withdrawn by the trial judge due to insufficient evidence.

The offences only came to light following allegations made by the complainants' children, which led to Social Services involvement and subsequent police reports in 2006. The Appellant was convicted on all counts except three, and sentenced to concurrent and consecutive terms totaling 10 years.

The main issues on appeal concerned the trial judge's rejection of a no case to answer submission on two counts, the adequacy of the judge’s directions to the jury, and whether these affected the safety of the convictions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer on counts 24 and 25.
2. Whether the judge’s summing-up was deficient in its directions of law and in summarising the defence case.
3. Whether the identified errors and omissions affected the safety of the convictions.
4. Whether the sentences on counts 19 and 20 were lawful and required correction.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The two complainants colluded in making false complaints influenced by their mother, who used the allegations to blackmail the Appellant.
• K's allegations were inherently unreliable due to proven lies and implausible claims, including continued abuse into adulthood and during a lesbian relationship.
• P’s inconsistent accounts over time undermined her credibility, specifically concerning allegations of sexual intercourse.
• The trial judge erred in failing to withdraw counts 24 and 25 due to lack of evidential support and in inadequately directing the jury on these counts.
• The judge failed to properly direct the jury on character evidence, collusion, and cross-admissibility of evidence between complainants.
• The judge’s summing-up was lengthy, confusing, and failed to adequately present the defence case, including omitting important directions to the second jury and on special measures evidence.
• The sentences on counts 19 and 20 were unlawful, exceeding the maximum permitted for offences committed before 16 September 1985.

Court's Observations on Defence Arguments

• The defence relied on extensive documentary and video evidence to support claims of normal family interactions and to challenge the complainants’ reliability.
• The defence submitted that the complainants had discussed and possibly rehearsed their evidence, leading to collusion.
• The defence argued that the judge’s directions on previous inconsistent statements and cross-admissibility were inadequate and misleading.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first considered whether counts 24 and 25 should have been withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. It concluded that the statutory conditions for admitting P’s second witness statement as evidence of the matters stated were met under section 119(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as P admitted making the inconsistent statement at trial. The differences between the statement and her oral evidence were not so significant as to render reliance on the statement unsafe. The jury were properly directed to treat inconsistencies with care and to decide which version to accept. The court rejected the defence submission that no rational jury could accept the second statement.

Regarding the judge’s directions, the court acknowledged some lack of clarity and detail, particularly in relation to the inconsistent statements and the cross-admissibility of evidence between the complainants. However, it found the directions adequate in substance and that the jury would have understood the issues sufficiently to decide the case fairly.

The court noted the failure to repeat introductory directions to the second jury and the omission of a special measures direction for one complainant but found no evidence these omissions affected the trial's fairness or the safety of the convictions.

On the defence case presentation, the court accepted that the judge’s "notebook" style summing-up was less structured than ideal but concluded that all significant defence points were covered and the jury would have been aware of the defence case.

Regarding sentencing, the court accepted the Registrar’s identification of unlawfully long sentences on two counts due to the timing of the offences and corrected these by reducing the sentences accordingly without affecting the total sentence length.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction, affirming the safety of all convictions on the indictment. It granted leave to appeal against sentence solely to correct the unlawful sentences on counts 19 and 20, reducing them to lawful concurrent terms of two years each, leaving the total sentence of 10 years unchanged.

The decision directly affects the parties by upholding the convictions and correcting sentencing errors but does not establish any new legal precedent or broader implications beyond the facts of this case.