FD, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted by a unanimous jury verdict on 19 March 2024 at Antrim Crown Court before Her Honour Judge McCormick KC on four counts related to indecent assault, gross indecency, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm involving two victims, referred to as H and S, who are half-sisters of the Appellant. The offences occurred between 1967 and 1975. The Appellant was sentenced on 1 July 2024 to a custody probation order comprising 21 months' custody and two years' probation.

The Appellant was born in 1954 and had no relevant previous convictions. The complainants, H and S, both had significant mental health difficulties, including hallucinations, which were addressed during the trial. The Appellant denied the allegations, asserting they were fabricated due to a longstanding family dispute.

The trial included multiple counts, with some resulting in guilty verdicts and others in not guilty verdicts or directed acquittals. The judge gave a detailed charge to the jury, highlighting inconsistencies and mental health issues affecting the complainants' evidence, and provided directions on how to assess the evidence and bad character material.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing the defence application for a direction of "no case to answer" at the conclusion of the prosecution case.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to give a direction of no case to answer in respect of Count 7 (gross indecency with H).
3. Whether the trial judge erred in not acceding to an application to discharge the jury after the directed acquittal on Count 9 (gross indecency with S).
4. Whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred in not directing a "no case to answer" ruling after the prosecution case, relying on legal authorities including R v Galbraith [1981], R v Shippey [1988], Archbold, and Blackstone’s.
• The inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence, both internal and external, were so significant that the case should not have been left to the jury.
• Both victims had documented histories of mental health issues, including hallucinations and previous false allegations, undermining the safety of the convictions.
• The judge erred in refusing to give a no case to answer direction regarding Count 7, which related to the complainant's age and the timing of the alleged offence.
• The judge erred in not discharging the jury after the directed acquittal on Count 9, due to prejudicial bad character evidence.
• The jury's verdicts were inconsistent, as it was illogical to convict on some counts while acquitting on others given the difficulties in the evidence.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution acknowledged inconsistencies but submitted that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to properly assess credibility and reach verdicts.
• The mental health difficulties of the complainants arose in adulthood and did not undermine their reliable recollections of childhood abuse.
• The prosecution highlighted accurate and corroborated details in the complainants’ evidence, including specific facts about the Appellant’s employment, property, and family home layout.
• The judge’s refusal to direct no case to answer was correct as the reliability and credibility of witnesses were matters for the jury.
• The judge’s directions to the jury regarding bad character evidence and the withdrawal of Count 9 were sufficient to prevent prejudice, so discharging the jury was unnecessary.
• The jury’s verdicts were not inconsistent, reflecting careful consideration of each count individually as directed by the judge.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the evidence and legal arguments, applying established legal principles, particularly the test from R v Galbraith, regarding when a judge should direct no case to answer. The court found that despite inconsistencies and the complainants’ mental health issues, there was sufficient evidence upon which a properly directed jury could convict. The judge’s charge was thorough and fair, highlighting all weaknesses in the evidence and instructing the jury on how to consider the mental health difficulties and inconsistencies.

The court accepted the prosecution’s position that the mental health issues arose later in life and did not undermine the core recollections of the complainants. The judge’s refusal to direct no case to answer on Count 7 was upheld as reasonable, given the age of the complainant and the timing of the alleged offence, which the jury was best placed to assess.

Regarding the application to discharge the jury after the directed acquittal on Count 9, the court held that the judge gave sufficient directions to mitigate any prejudice from bad character evidence, thus no discharge was warranted.

The court rejected the contention that the verdicts were inconsistent, noting the jury carefully considered each count separately and returned mixed verdicts accordingly. The court applied the principles from R v Pollock and concluded there was no reason to consider the verdicts unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal DISMISSED the appeal against conviction.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s convictions and sentence stand as imposed by the trial court. The court found no basis to disturb the jury’s findings or the sentencing decision. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reinforces established principles regarding jury assessments of credibility, handling of mental health issues in complainants, and the limited circumstances in which a judge should direct no case to answer or discharge a jury.