IA, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, referred to as Applicant, was charged with seven counts of indecent assault against a female complainant, who is his younger sister. The offences occurred between April 1988 and April 1990 when the complainant was aged 7-8 and the Applicant was aged 14-15. The Applicant was arraigned in June 2019 and pleaded not guilty. The trial took place in March 2020 before a judge and jury. The jury returned majority verdicts (10-2) of guilty on four counts and were unable to reach verdicts on the remaining three counts.

In September 2020, the Applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended for three years on all four counts to run concurrently. Additional orders included disqualification from working with children and notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Applicant sought leave to appeal both conviction and sentence. Leave to appeal conviction was refused by the single judge, but the appeal against sentence and other grounds were pursued before the Court of Appeal.

The complainant's evidence described multiple incidents of inappropriate touching and digital penetration occurring in the family home. The offences came to light through disclosures made over several years, culminating in a police complaint in 2017. The Applicant admitted a single inappropriate touching incident when younger but denied the allegations leading to the charges.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing a bad character application to cross-examine the complainant about her marijuana use.
2. Whether prosecution counsel made improper remarks during closing speech and cross-examination affecting the fairness of the trial.
3. Whether the judge erred in his direction to the jury during their retirement, potentially pressuring them to reach verdicts.
4. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the offences and the Applicant's background.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The trial judge wrongly refused to allow cross-examination on the complainant's marijuana use, which was relevant to her reliability and mental state.
• Prosecution counsel made improper remarks during closing and cross-examination that undermined the fairness of the trial.
• The judge's direction to the jury that they would be discharged if unable to reach verdicts placed undue pressure on jurors.
• The sentence was excessive considering the Applicant's young age at the time of offences, low culpability, good character, and mitigation available.
• A sentence under 12 months imprisonment would have avoided the requirement for sex offender registration.

Crown's Arguments

• The marijuana use occurred many years after the alleged offences and was not relevant to the issues at trial.
• Prosecution counsel's remarks fell within the normal range of adversarial litigation and were not improper.
• The judge acted properly and within discretion in responding to the jury's note, and no pressure was placed on jurors.
• The sentence was appropriate to the seriousness of the offences, the harm caused, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the bad character ground. It noted procedural deficiencies in the Applicant's application, including lack of written notice and insufficient preparation by both parties. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural rules for bad character evidence and cited relevant authority condemning casual late applications. On the merits, the court distinguished the leading case on drug use (R v G) on factual grounds, observing that the marijuana use in this case occurred long after the alleged abuse and was not relevant to the credibility of the complainant at the time of the offences or reporting. The court upheld the trial judge’s refusal of the application as correct.

Regarding the alleged improper remarks by prosecution counsel, the court found these to be typical of adversarial trial practice. The judge had appropriately managed objections and provided jury warnings to mitigate any risk of prejudice. No basis was found to interfere with the convictions on this ground.

On the jury retirement ground, the court reviewed the judge’s response to the jury’s note about deadlock. Applying established principles, it held that the judge acted within his discretion and did not place improper pressure on jurors. The subsequent majority verdicts were the product of proper deliberations.

On the sentencing appeal, the court carefully compared the present case with the precedent R v ML, the leading authority on sentencing historic sexual offences by young offenders. It considered factors including the Applicant’s age at the time, the nature and seriousness of the offences (including digital penetration), the harm caused, mitigation such as good character and low risk of reoffending, and the passage of time. The court found the sentencing judge’s approach balanced and within discretion. The suspended sentence was appropriate, and the court rejected the Applicant’s submission that a shorter sentence avoiding sex offender registration was justified.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to appeal against conviction on the bad character ground but dismissed the appeal on that ground. Leave to appeal was refused on the other two grounds of conviction and on the sentencing appeal.

The direct effect is that the Applicant’s convictions and sentence stand as determined below. No new legal precedent was established beyond the reaffirmation of existing principles concerning bad character evidence, jury directions, and sentencing historic sexual offences by young offenders. The decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in bad character applications and confirms judicial discretion in managing jury deliberations and sentencing.