A R M, R v

Where fresh evidence shows that another person committed similar sexual offences against the same child complainants during an overlapping period, it may materially undermine the reliability of their accounts and the safety of convictions founded on them. The court will quash convictions where the new material could have affected the outcome of the trial.

The appellant was convicted in 1996 of two indecent assaults on young sisters for whom he babysat. He was acquitted of a similar allegation involving a third girl. His initial applications for leave to appeal were refused.

After learning that the girls’ stepfather had been convicted of offences against all three children, the appellant approached the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Its investigation showed an overlap between the stepfather’s offending and the alleged offending by the appellant, with striking similarities in the allegations. The court considered whether that fresh material could have affected the original verdicts.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed both convictions for indecent assault.

2. The fresh evidence established that the stepfather had committed offences against the two complainants and the third girl during a period that at least partly overlapped with the period alleged against the appellant. The allegations against the stepfather closely resembled those made against the appellant.

3. That evidence directly affected a central difficulty at trial: how the young complainants, otherwise said to be inexperienced, could give circumstantial accounts of the alleged assaults. It supplied a readily available alternative explanation for their knowledge.

4. The complainants had also said that the appellant was the only person ever to treat them in that way. In light of the stepfather’s offending, that evidence cast doubt on their reliability, if not their veracity.

5. The Criminal Cases Review Commission considered that the new material could have produced a different outcome. The Crown accepted that assessment. The court therefore held that the convictions could not stand. A defendant’s costs order of £120 was made, and the Crown did not invite a retrial. Reporting was restricted so as to prevent identification of the complainants.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a further appeal following a Criminal Cases Review Commission investigation, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the 1996 convictions.

• Earlier appeal process: The appellant’s 1997 application for leave to appeal was refused by a single judge, and his renewed application was refused by the full court.