Dredge, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was convicted after trial in the Crown Court of one count of rape and acquitted of a second count. The Applicant was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment. [1]

The Applicant and the Complainant were colleagues who had been conducting a secret affair. Following events at a staff party and nightclub, the Applicant followed the Complainant to a hotel room, where the prosecution alleged that he used force and had non-consensual intercourse with her. The Applicant was acquitted in relation to a later incident involving access to the Complainant’s room. [2][3][4][5][6]

The Applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction after a single judge refused leave. The application raised one proposed ground of appeal concerning the trial judge’s handling of the jury’s request to replay part of the Complainant’s recorded interview. [7][8][9]

Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applied because the case involved an allegation of a sexual offence. [10]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it was unfair or irregular for the trial judge to permit the jury to replay selected extracts from the Complainant’s Achieving Best Evidence interview to assess her demeanour. [9]
2. Whether the safeguards applied by the trial judge adequately addressed the inability to replicate the Complainant’s demeanour during cross-examination. [11][12]
3. Whether the proposed ground of appeal was arguable and justified granting leave to appeal. [13][14]

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant’s Arguments

• The trial judge had presented the agreed jury directions by interspersing them with directions relating to the evidence, particularly concerning demeanour. [15][16]
• The judge had summarised the evidence of both the Complainant and the Applicant too briefly. [17][18]
• It was unfair to replay the recorded interview because it did not allow the jury to reassess the Complainant’s demeanour during cross-examination, especially after being directed not to place undue emphasis on demeanour. [9]
• The Complainant’s responses concerning the duration of her presence in the Applicant’s room and whether she had removed her own clothing illustrated the importance of her demeanour during cross-examination. [19][20][12]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first identified the governing approach: replaying an Achieving Best Evidence interview is a matter for the trial judge’s discretion, subject to safeguards designed to prevent unfair emphasis on repeated evidence and to ensure that the jury considers the surrounding evidence. The authorities did not require exceptional circumstances, although the trial judge had considered that issue. [21][23][24][26]

The Court rejected the criticism of the trial judge’s summing-up. The judge had placed the agreed legal directions about demeanour in the context of the issues and evidence the jury had to assess, and the Court found nothing unusual or critical in that approach. [27]

The Court held that the trial judge had properly considered the jury’s request and limited the replay to extracts necessary to address the jury’s enquiry. Before the replay, the judge warned the jury against placing disproportionate weight on the material and reminded them of the Applicant’s case. [8][28][29][22]

After the replay, the judge provided the jury with the Complainant’s cross-examination evidence and the Applicant’s evidence. This sufficiently placed the replay in the context of the wider evidence and addressed the fairness concerns raised by the Applicant. [29][22][25]

Although the inability to reproduce a witness’s demeanour during cross-examination could potentially create unfairness in some cases, the Court held that this case was not arguably such a case. The jury had recently heard the cross-examination and received a proper reminder of the points made during it. [30][25]

Holding and Implications

Leave to appeal was refused. The Court held that the renewed application was not arguable and that the trial judge’s handling of the jury’s request was lawful, fair and free from procedural irregularity. [14]

The direct effect was that the Applicant’s conviction remained undisturbed. The opinion does not identify any broader implication beyond applying the established principles governing the replay of recorded witness interviews; no new precedent was set. [13][25][14]