Summary of Court of Appeal Opinion (Anonymised)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns historic allegations made in 2002 by a child who was aged 5–6 at the time (referred to in this summary as "Complainant") that the Appellant committed sexual offences against her. The Appellant was tried and in July 2018 was convicted at trial in the Crown Court on four counts of indecency with a child. He was sentenced in August 2018 to a special custodial sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003; the custodial and extended licence components were adjusted on a reference by the Attorney General and, on 25 October 2018, the Court of Appeal substituted concurrent sentences resulting in an overall special custodial sentence of ten years (nine years custody plus one year extended licence).

The Appellant was granted leave to appeal against conviction; the Full Court dismissed that appeal in July 2019. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) later referred the conviction back to the Court of Appeal under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, on the ground that material not disclosed to the defence at trial might cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.

Key factual background (as available in the opinion): the alleged offending occurred in 2001–2002. The Complainant first made allegations in August 2002 and was interviewed by police; the original audio/video recording of that first interview no longer exists. A short "Index of Interview" summarising that 2002 interview was retained. The 2002 investigation produced limited forensic or medical evidence and the Crown initially decided not to proceed; the case was re-opened in 2016 at the Complainant's request and the Appellant was charged in December 2017. At trial the prosecution relied on the Complainant's later ABE interview (2017), the 2002 Index of Interview, witness evidence from family members and police, and audio recordings made by the Complainant of conversations with the Appellant in 2016. The defence relied on the missing original 2002 recording and other contemporaneous notes, and advanced that the Complainant's account was unreliable or contaminated.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether material (described in the opinion as UM10 documentation and additional South Wales Police documents) which was not provided to the defence at trial casts doubt on the safety of the Appellant's conviction.
2. Whether, in the light of that undisclosed material, the CCRC was correct to refer the conviction to the Court of Appeal and whether the conviction should be quashed or otherwise disturbed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant relied on undisclosed documents from a child protection conference (dated 16 September 2002) and related social work material which, it was submitted, showed that (a) the Complainant had been exposed to her parents having sexual intercourse while sleeping in the same room from early childhood, (b) the Complainant had engaged in sexualised behaviour with another child (referred to in the opinion as "B") prior to the period of the alleged offending, (c) the Complainant had described positive feelings toward the Appellant (he "made her happy"), and (d) the Complainant had given a card saying "sorry" after charges were dropped — which could be consistent with recantation or making a false allegation.
• It was submitted that this additional material undermines the prosecution case because it provides an alternative explanation for how the Complainant could have the sexual knowledge necessary to describe oral sex and ejaculation and therefore bears directly on the central credibility and reliability questions the jury had to resolve.
• Counsel for the Appellant also emphasised that the case was a pure credibility contest and that the jury convicted by a majority, suggesting the verdict might have been finely balanced; thus any additional material that could support inconsistency in the Complainant's account was argued to be materially significant.

Crown's Arguments

• The Prosecution submitted that the additional material was of marginal significance. Information that the Complainant may have seen her parents having intercourse was already reflected in material before the trial (and in an agreed fact) and had been the subject of defence submissions at trial.
• The Prosecution maintained that the undisclosed documents did not furnish particulars or factual detail sufficient to show that the Complainant could have acquired the specific sexual knowledge necessary to fabricate the allegations of oral sex and ejaculation.
• The Prosecution also submitted that the references to low-grade sexualised behaviour (e.g. wearing adult shoes, makeup) and the limited nature of the early experimentation with another child did not meaningfully explain the detailed accusations the Complainant made about the Appellant.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted the CCRC's assessment that the case merited referral and carefully examined the undisclosed material located by the CCRC. That material comprised minutes and pro-forma reports from a multi-disciplinary Child Protection Conference dated 16 September 2002 (referred to in the opinion as the UM10 documentation), minutes of a review meeting dated 16 December 2002, and a South Wales Police report summarising contemporaneous concerns.

The Court analysed whether the undisclosed documents, either individually or cumulatively, changed the "evidential landscape" in a way that would render the conviction unsafe. The Court placed the undisclosed material in two principal contextual considerations:

• Evidence and material already available at trial: The defence had, according to the Court, a substantial body of material with which to test the Complainant's reliability (including the Index of Interview, the paucity of forensic evidence, evidence of inconsistent accounts, the Complainant's own statement admitting lies to a boyfriend, and a 2002 assessment by an officer that the Complainant's evidence was "tainted"). The Court noted that the trial judge gave an extensive direction about the consequences of lost material to the jury and that the defence was able to deploy considerable material in cross-examination.
• The trial process itself: The jury heard both the Complainant and the Appellant give evidence and the Complainant was robustly cross-examined on the matters that the undisclosed documents now illuminated (for example, whether she had seen her parents engaged in sexual activity). The Court emphasised that what was missing from trial was evidential basis to advance a specific contention that the Complainant learned the precise sexual knowledge (oral sex, ejaculation descriptions) from witnessing her parents or from the early experimentation noted in the documents.

Applying these considerations to the undisclosed material, the Court addressed the principal items:

• Sleeping arrangements and parental intercourse: Although the new documents recorded that the Complainant had slept in her parents' bedroom and that her parents had intercourse in the room, the Court concluded this did not supply the evidential foundation to show that the Complainant had acquired the specific sexual knowledge underpinning her allegations. Defence counsel had been able to cross-examine on the topic at trial; the Court found no basis to conclude the new information would have materially altered the jury's assessment.
• Early sexualised behaviour with another child (B): The documentation that suggested exploration between young children aged around four did not, in the Court's view, explain or enable the Complainant's later detailed account of oral sex and ejaculation. The Court found the material insufficient to demonstrate how that early behaviour would have generated the detailed complaint.
• Kissing on the lips and other parental contact: The fact that family members may have kissed the child on the lips was not considered to materially support an allegation that the Complainant was so sexualised that she fabricated the specific allegations; moreover, the Appellant admitted he had kissed the Complainant on the lips, so that fact did not advance his case materially.
• Card saying "sorry": The Court noted the existence of a card but did not consider it persuasive evidence of fabrication sufficient to undermine the safety of conviction.

Weighing the potential impact of the undisclosed material against the evidence actually before the jury — including the 2017 ABE, contemporaneous materials that were available to the defence, forensic negatives, family witness evidence, and rigorous cross-examination — the Court concluded that the newly disclosed documents did not, singly or in combination, cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal against conviction. It held that the undisclosed materials identified by the CCRC did not render the conviction unsafe.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the Appellant's conviction and sentence remain intact. The Court accepted the CCRC's reasonable basis for referring the case but determined that no interference with the conviction was justified on the evidence now produced. The opinion does not purport to establish new legal principles or a novel precedent; it applies established appellate standards for assessing whether newly disclosed material undermines the safety of a conviction and concludes that, on the facts of this case, it does not.

Note on anonymisation: This summary replaces identifying personal and location information found in the original opinion with generic placeholders (e.g., "Appellant", "Complainant", "Judge [Last Name]", "Police", "Social Services", "The City") in order to preserve the anonymity directed by the court.