Hammill, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 17 April 2023, in the Crown Court at The City, the applicant, referred to as the Defendant, was convicted of multiple sexual offences involving a child under the age of 13. The offences included two counts of rape of a child under 13, two counts of assault by digital penetration, two counts of similar assault by penetration with the tongue, and nine counts of sexual activity with a child. The Defendant was sentenced to a total of 12 years, comprising 11 years custodial and an additional 1-year licence period. The Defendant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction was initially refused by a single judge, and he renewed his application for leave to appeal.

The complainant, anonymized as "AB," was a child related to a family member in a relationship with the Defendant. The allegations covered a period from when AB was aged 11 to 14, involving multiple instances of vaginal and anal penetration by the Defendant using fingers, tongue, and penis. The prosecution’s case largely relied on AB’s evidence, supported by other witnesses including AB’s first partner. The Defendant, who has autism, gave evidence with the assistance of an intermediary appointed shortly before his testimony. The Defendant denied all sexual activity with AB. Notably, AB’s mother also testified, stating that AB had fabricated the allegations.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Recorder’s summing-up was biased in favour of the prosecution, thereby usurping the jury’s role.
2. Whether the summing-up was so diffuse and unstructured as to be unhelpful to the jury.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in the management and support provided by the intermediary to the Defendant during his evidence.
4. Whether the trial judge erred in permitting the prosecution to cross-examine their own witnesses, specifically AB’s mother and father.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Grounds 1 and 2: The Appellant’s attorney argued that the Recorder’s summing-up was improperly pro-prosecution, containing repeated comments favoring the prosecution that usurped the jury’s role. It was also contended that the summing-up was unstructured and diffuse, failing to assist the jury adequately.
• Ground 3: The Appellant contended that the intermediary was not allowed to assist effectively during his evidence. The ground rules hearing was held too late, contrary to recommended procedures, and the intermediary’s requests for breaks and assistance were ignored or overruled by the judge. The initial 90 minutes of cross-examination were conducted without appropriate adjustments, causing confusion to the Defendant.
• Ground 4: The Appellant argued that the prosecution erred by cross-examining their own witnesses, particularly AB’s mother, in a manner that implicitly suggested dishonesty. Specific issues were raised about re-examination concerning statements the mother allegedly made to the police and questions about the timing of AB’s move from the family home.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Mears [1993] 1 WLR 818	If a summing-up is fundamentally imbalanced, it cannot be corrected by a judge’s instruction that evidence assessment is for the jury.	The Court considered this precedent in evaluating the alleged bias in the summing-up and concluded that despite one minor error, the summing-up was not fundamentally biased or imbalanced.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully reviewed the entire trial record, including the summing-up, transcripts of evidence, and reports related to the Defendant’s autism and intermediary assistance. Regarding Grounds 1 and 2, the Court found that the summing-up clearly outlined the jury’s role, the evidence, and the defence case. Although the Recorder mistakenly used the phrase "we suggest" once, this was corrected and did not amount to fundamental bias or confusion for the jury.

On Ground 3, the Court acknowledged the importance of intermediaries in assisting vulnerable witnesses and noted the late timing of the ground rules hearing was not ideal. However, it found that a ground rules hearing was held before the Defendant’s evidence and that the key recommendations were communicated and followed. The Court found no evidence that the intermediary was overruled or ignored and noted the Defendant declined a break near the end of cross-examination. The Court concluded that the handling of the intermediary did not render the conviction unsafe.

Regarding Ground 4, the Court observed that the prosecution’s re-examination of AB’s mother clarified ambiguities about statements to police and that these matters were properly for the jury’s assessment. The timing of AB’s move from the family home was not considered to affect the safety of the conviction. Thus, no arguable error was found on this ground.

Considering all grounds cumulatively, the Court was satisfied that none of the alleged errors, individually or together, rendered the conviction unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL against the Defendant’s conviction. The direct effect is that the convictions and sentence remain undisturbed. No new legal precedent was established by this decision. The Court acknowledged the difficulties faced by the family but emphasized that the conviction was safe on the evidence and legal principles applied.