Prince, R. v

A conviction is unsafe where fresh evidence substantially damages the credibility of the complainant and that damage is inseparably connected with the central allegation. Forensic evidence cannot preserve the conviction unless, assessed in its evidential context, it provides a sufficiently reliable basis for guilt independently of the damaged testimony. DNA evidence capable of explanation by contamination or secondary transfer, and which does not establish sexual contact, may be inadequate for that purpose.

The appellant was convicted of rape by a majority verdict at the Central Criminal Court before HHJ Boal QC, following a retrial after the first jury had failed to agree. The case depended principally on the complainant’s credibility, with limited scientific evidence from her underwear.

After conviction, the complainant made an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority containing allegations and asserted medical consequences that were materially inconsistent with her trial account. Medical material showed that part of that application was false. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the conviction to the Court of Appeal under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. The issue was whether the fresh evidence, viewed with the scientific evidence, left the conviction safe.

1. The conviction was quashed as unsafe. Fresh evidence showed that at least part of the complainant’s application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was false. It also contained significant inconsistencies with her evidence at both trials. The court held that this substantially damaged her credibility, and that the damage was inextricably linked to the allegation on which the conviction depended.
2. The trial had correctly identified the complainant’s credibility as central. There was no criticism of the summing up: the judge had fairly directed the jury that the scientific evidence was not conclusive and that the appellant’s DNA on the underwear could be explained by accidental transfer, deliberate planting, or sexual intercourse.
3. The scientific evidence could not independently sustain the conviction. The spermatozoa were not attributed to the appellant and had an alternative source. Although the appellant’s DNA was present, the evidence did not exclude contamination or secondary transfer. In the circumstances, it could not justify the conclusion that the DNA represented sexual contact between the appellant and the complainant.
4. Accordingly, the forensic material was inadequate to save a conviction otherwise founded on testimony whose credibility had been materially undermined. The court quashed the conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the court quashed the rape conviction as unsafe: [2005] EWCA Crim 2910.
• Central Criminal Court: The appellant was convicted of rape by a 10–2 majority verdict before HHJ Boal QC and a jury at a second trial. The first jury had been unable to agree a verdict.