Regina v Adams

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns convictions for sexual offences alleged to have been committed between 1980 and 1987. The appellant was convicted at a retrial in the Crown Court at Cardiff in 2017 of multiple counts of rape and indecent assault involving two complainants, identified here as M and G to preserve anonymity. The appellant was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. The appellant, who was 77 years old at trial and of previously good character, died during the appeal process, but his widow was granted permission to continue the appeal. The offences involved abuse by the appellant, a member of a brass band, against two younger members of the band. The first complainant, M, alleged repeated sexual abuse commencing when she was about 13 years old, continuing until she became pregnant by the appellant at age 17. The second complainant, G, alleged two incidents of sexual assault by the appellant, one occurring abroad and one in the UK. The appellant denied non-consensual sexual activity and claimed any sexual acts with M occurred only after she was 16. The appeal was limited to three grounds concerning jury directions and the treatment of evidence at trial.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred by not directing the jury on whether, and if so how, they could rely on the evidence of each complainant when considering allegations made by the other complainant.
2. Whether the judge was wrong not to direct the jury about the possibility of collusion between the complainants given the defence case that one complainant was manipulative and capable of influencing the other.
3. Whether the judge unfairly undermined and cast doubt on a piece of evidence on which the defence was entitled to rely concerning the appellant’s naming of the second complainant during an interview under caution.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that the judge failed to give appropriate directions to the jury regarding how they should treat the evidence of each complainant in relation to the other, which was critical because the prosecution did not seek to admit bad character evidence linking the counts.
• The appellant argued that the jury should have been warned about the possibility of collusion between the complainants, as the defence case portrayed one complainant as manipulative and capable of influencing the other.
• The appellant submitted that the judge unfairly discredited the defence evidence that it was improbable the appellant would name the second complainant during police interview if he had assaulted him, thereby undermining a key line of defence.
• Overall, counsel for the appellant argued that these errors rendered the convictions unsafe, either individually or cumulatively.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent confirmed that the prosecution did not seek to rely on evidence of the appellant’s bad character linking the counts, except for a notice relating to an incident abroad which was not charged.
• The respondent relied on precedent to argue that the standard direction to consider each count separately was sufficient, referencing a prior case where similar directions were held adequate.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the principles governing the admissibility and use of evidence relating to multiple offences and complainants, focusing on the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Criminal Procedure Rules which regulate bad character evidence. It noted that the prosecution did not follow the required procedure to admit evidence of bad character linking the counts, except for an unrelated incident abroad. Consequently, the evidence relating to each complainant was inadmissible in relation to allegations involving the other unless properly admitted. The trial judge failed to direct the jury on this critical point, leaving the jury without guidance on whether or how to consider evidence from one complainant when assessing the other’s allegations.

The court observed that the general trend towards relaxed evidentiary rules still requires clear jury directions in complex cases involving multiple complainants and offences. It stressed that lay jurors cannot be expected to discern the correct legal approach themselves and must be assisted by the judge. The absence of any such direction was viewed as a significant procedural defect that rendered the convictions unsafe. The court found that the first ground of appeal was decisive and did not need to address the other grounds in detail.

Holding and Implications

The court UPHELD the first ground of appeal and QUASHED the appellant’s convictions.

The direct consequence is that the appellant’s convictions for the sexual offences are overturned due to the unsafe nature of the convictions arising from the trial judge’s failure to properly direct the jury on the use of evidence relating to multiple complainants. No broader precedent was established beyond affirming the necessity of clear jury directions in cases involving multiple allegations and complainants where bad character evidence is not properly admitted.