Hurley,R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the approach to evidence of allegedly false complaints of sexual and other offences made by a complainant ("Y") relating to occasions other than those relied on by the prosecution in the trial. The appellant was convicted in 2016 at Liverpool Crown Court of two sexual offences and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. His initial appeal against conviction was dismissed in 2018. In 2020, the appellant applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission ("CCRC"), which referred the case back to the Court of Appeal on the basis of fresh evidence raising concerns about the complainant's credibility and reliability. The fresh evidence includes prior and subsequent rape and domestic violence complaints made by Y against others, including her then partner and husband ("H"). The court was tasked with considering the admissibility of this fresh evidence under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the safety of the appellant's convictions in light of it.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether evidence of other rape complaints made by the complainant is admissible under section 41 and/or section 100.
2. Whether evidence of domestic violence allegations made by the complainant against her partner/husband is admissible under section 100.
3. Whether the appellant's convictions are safe in light of the fresh evidence if it were admissible.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The other rape complaints made by the complainant are individually admissible and their number strengthens the case for admissibility under section 100(3)(a).
• The evidence of false complaints undermines the complainant's credibility and reliability, rendering the convictions unsafe.
• The domestic violence allegations, although less similar to the index offences, demonstrate a propensity to make false or unreliable complaints and should be admitted as part of the wider narrative.

Respondent's Arguments

• None of the other complaints meet the relevant admissibility tests under section 41 or section 100.
• The complainant's prior rape complaints do not have a proper evidential basis to be considered false.
• The domestic violence allegations lack substantial probative value in relation to the credibility of the complainant's rape allegation against the appellant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by outlining the legal framework governing the admissibility of evidence relating to sexual behaviour and bad character of non-defendants, specifically sections 41 and 100. It emphasized that evidence of false complaints of sexual offences, when made about occasions other than those charged, generally falls outside the scope of section 41 if it relates to statements rather than sexual behaviour itself, and is instead governed by section 100.

The court examined the complainant's prior rape allegations recorded in the 2004 Police Report and 2014 GP Note, finding no proper evidential basis to conclude they were false. The complainant never retracted these allegations and disclosed their lasting emotional impact, undermining the appellant's claim of falsity. The court also considered the complainant's later rape allegations against her then-husband, noting the complex and volatile relationship, her mental health struggles, and that these allegations involved issues of consent, thus engaging section 41. The court found such evidence inadmissible under section 41(4) because its main purpose was to impugn credibility.

Regarding the domestic violence allegations, the court found that although these were outside section 41 and subject to section 100, the evidence did not have substantial probative value to demonstrate falsity of the complainant's rape allegation against the appellant. The court noted the genuine injuries and the context of an abusive relationship, concluding these allegations were not sufficiently probative to be admitted.

On the question of multiplicity of complaints, the court rejected the argument that multiple allegations imply falsity, emphasizing the complainant's troubled life and vulnerability to sexual predation.

In assessing the safety of the convictions, the court acknowledged that even if the evidence were admissible, it would have limited impact on the jury's assessment. The appellant's defence was undermined by inconsistencies and omissions, while the complainant's consistent accounts and multiple early disclosures supported her credibility. The court found the convictions safe.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The court held that the fresh evidence concerning other rape and domestic violence complaints by the complainant was inadmissible under sections 41 and 100, and even if admitted, would not render the convictions unsafe. The direct effect is that the appellant's convictions for sexual offences remain upheld. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the application of sections 41 and 100 to evidence of false complaints and the importance of a proper evidential basis for admissibility.