CT, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against a conviction following a jury trial for sexual assault of a child under 13, contrary to Article 14 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. The Applicant challenged the conviction but not the sentence. [1][2]

The Complainant, the Applicant’s daughter, was aged approximately 11½ when the alleged incident occurred in the family home in 2017. She reported the allegation in 2021. [3]

A first trial was abandoned after the jury was discharged. At that trial, the first-trial judge refused the Crown’s application to admit the Applicant’s previous convictions as bad-character evidence. [4][5]

At the retrial, the trial judge raised the potential bad-character application. Although the Crown applied to introduce the evidence, the trial judge initially refused the application, relying on the earlier ruling. [6][7]

The trial judge later reconsidered the issue after the Complainant’s cross-examination and admitted evidence of the Applicant’s previous convictions under Article 6(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice (Evidence) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 and Article 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. [8][9][10][11]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge improperly descended into the arena and acted as a second prosecutor. [12][13]
2. Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the Applicant’s previous convictions as bad-character evidence to correct a false impression under Article 6(1)(f) of the 2004 Order. [14][13]
3. Whether the admission of the evidence rendered the conviction unsafe. [15]

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant’s Arguments

• The trial judge acted unfairly by raising the bad-character issue and effectively descending into the arena as a second prosecutor. [12][13]
• The Applicant’s questioning did not create a false impression requiring correction under Article 6(1)(f). [14][13]

Crown’s Arguments

• The Applicant’s cross-examination and interview position created the impression that he was a non-violent family man who would not commit this type of offence and was deserving of sympathy. [16][17]
• The Crown relied particularly on questions suggesting that the Applicant would never have committed the alleged conduct against the Complainant, together with evidence concerning family life and the absence of previous inappropriate conduct. [18][19][20][17]
• The Crown also relied on agreed facts concerning an investigation arising from allegations that the Applicant had communicated with decoys posing as children. [21]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

Article 6(1)(f) permits bad-character evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant. Articles 10(1), 10(2)(d), and 10(6) require the court to identify the misleading assertion, determine whether the defendant was responsible for it, and ensure that the corrective evidence goes no further than necessary. [26][27][28][29][30]

The court identified two central questions: whether the Applicant had created a false impression and whether the evidence proposed by the Crown was necessary and proportionate to correct it. The court emphasised that such cases are intensely fact-specific. [24][25][18]

The trial judge considered that the defence had gone beyond a robust challenge by presenting the Applicant as a wholesome, non-violent person who would not commit the alleged offence. The judge focused particularly on the wording “he would never have done that to you,” rather than “he did not do that to you.” [31][10]

The appellate court disagreed. It held that the question was directed specifically to whether the Applicant would have offended against his daughter, who had made no previous complaint, rather than whether he would offend generally. The court therefore considered the trial judge’s criticism of the questioning misplaced. [32][33]

Because no false impression requiring correction had been established, the appellate court concluded that the bad-character evidence should not have been admitted. Its admission was also inconsistent with the fairness assessment required under Article 76 of the 1989 Order. [34]

The court recognised that appellate courts ordinarily interfere cautiously with decisions concerning the admission of bad-character evidence. Nevertheless, it found a clear legal error. The previous convictions were highly material and had significant potential to prejudice the Applicant in defending a single allegation made many years after the alleged event. [34][15][35]

Holding and Implications

Leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. [36][37]

The prosecution was given time to decide whether to seek a retrial. The opinion discusses no broader implications beyond the direct effect on the Applicant, and no new precedent was set. [37]