MF, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse by the Appellant against the Complainant, his step niece, spanning significant periods of her childhood and adolescence. The Complainant was close to her grandmother, who was the Appellant's mother, and the abuse allegedly occurred at the grandmother's house. The allegations included specific incidents when the Complainant was approximately 7 years old, a repeated pattern of abuse around age 8, a confrontation within the family leading to a temporary cessation of visits, and further incidents at ages 9 or 10 and during her teenage years until age 17. The prosecution case included a conviction for rape relating to the teenage period, and an acquittal on a later alleged rape when the Complainant was a young adult.

The Appellant denied the allegations and asserted a motive for fabrication related to family tensions following the death of the grandmother. The Appellant was convicted in the Crown Court after trial on multiple counts of indecent assault, assault by penetration, and rape, and sentenced to a total of 13 years' imprisonment. The Appellant applied for leave to appeal against conviction more than five years after the trial, which was refused by a single judge. The Appellant renewed the application before the Full Court, which also refused leave to appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there is good reason to grant an extension of time for the Appellant to appeal against conviction more than five years out of time.
2. Whether the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant amount to arguable grounds that cast doubt on the safety of the convictions.
3. Whether trial counsel's decisions regarding evidence and case preparation were adequate and did not prejudice the Appellant.
4. Whether errors in the trial judge's summing-up materially affected the fairness of the trial and the jury's verdicts.
5. Whether new evidence relating to foster care placements affects the reliability of the Complainant's account and the safety of the convictions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Trial counsel failed to present a counselling report concerning the Complainant that could have assisted the defence.
• Trial counsel improperly agreed to edits in the Complainant's ABE interview, removing references to a physical altercation and family disputes.
• The Appellant was prejudiced by a late change of trial counsel and lack of transparency in handling evidence.
• The trial judge made errors in the summing-up, including incorrect statements regarding the Complainant's disclosures to her mother and inconsistencies in the timeline of abuse.
• Evidence from Social Services about foster child placements undermines the timeline of alleged abuse incidents.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The counselling report did not demonstrate unreliability in the Complainant's evidence and might have strengthened the prosecution case.
• Decisions to edit the ABE interview were reasonable to avoid prejudice, and admissibility is a matter for counsel's discretion.
• The defence was adequately prepared despite the change in counsel, and the Appellant had opportunities to engage with the case materials.
• Errors in the summing-up were minor, some potentially favorable to the Appellant, and did not undermine the jury's verdicts.
• The foster child evidence did not meaningfully affect the testing of the Complainant's account at trial.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the test for granting an extension of time for appeal, focusing on whether there were arguable grounds that the convictions were unsafe. It considered the Appellant's explanation for delay as a refusal to accept negative advice about appeal prospects rather than a substantive reason. The court carefully reviewed each ground of appeal, including counsel's handling of evidence, the trial judge's summing-up, and the new evidence concerning foster care placements. In each instance, the court found no material impact on the safety of the convictions or the fairness of the trial. The court emphasized the jury's capability to assess discrepancies in evidence and noted that the acquittal on one count indicated proper jury scrutiny. The court concluded there was no realistic prospect of success on appeal and upheld the refusal of leave to appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision is to REFUSE THE RENEWED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL against the Appellant's convictions.

This decision means the convictions and sentences remain undisturbed. There is no indication that this ruling sets new legal precedent; rather, it confirms the application of established principles regarding extension of time for appeals, counsel's discretion in evidence handling, and assessment of jury verdicts in sexual offence cases. The court also declined to order the Appellant to pay transcript costs given the modest amount involved.