Siddall & Anor, R. v

Where fresh material, considered cumulatively with any material defect in the jury directions, leaves the Court of Appeal unable to be sure that a properly directed jury with the full evidential picture would have convicted, the convictions are unsafe and must be quashed. In historic sexual-abuse cases, a clear direction is required where delay may materially hinder a defendant who denies the allegations and cannot recall the complainants. A conviction cannot safely remain where the jury was directed to treat other allegations as mutually supportive but those allegations have subsequently been found unsafe.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the appellants’ historic sexual-abuse convictions from Leeds Crown Court. The references relied principally on material not available at trial concerning allegations made by RW against other men, inconsistencies in her accounts, and the outcome of proceedings against another care worker.

For Siddall, the court also considered whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on prejudice caused by delay. His convictions concerning PW had been supported by a direction permitting the jury to treat the accounts of JF, RW and PW as mutually supportive. For Brooke, the Crown no longer sought to support the convictions concerning AMS following post-trial psychological material.

The central question was whether the cumulative effect of the new material, the directions, and the interdependence of the complainants’ evidence rendered the convictions unsafe.

Appeals allowed. The court quashed all of Siddall’s and Brooke’s convictions.

1. The newly available material concerning RW was capable of materially affecting the jury’s assessment of her credibility. It included accounts of other alleged sexual abuse, inconsistencies, and evidence that she had lied in proceedings against another care worker when challenged about her compensation claim. Individual items might not have made the verdict unsafe, but their cumulative effect could have been deployed with considerable force by the defence. The court could not be certain that a jury with the full picture would have convicted. Applying R v Pendleton [2002] 1 WLR 72, the RW convictions were unsafe and had to be quashed.

2. In Siddall’s trial, the delay direction did not adequately identify or stress the disadvantage arising from allegations made many years after the events, particularly where the defence was a complete denial and Siddall could not remember the complainants. A clear warning should have been given. The defect alone would not necessarily have rendered the convictions unsafe, but it added to the cumulative concern.

3. The convictions concerning PW could not safely stand. The jury had been invited to use the apparently independent allegations of JF, RW and PW as mutually supportive. The jury had not reached verdicts on the JF counts, and the RW convictions were unsafe. The remaining PW convictions therefore could not be assessed as safely insulated from that direction.

4. Brooke’s AMS convictions were not contested by the Crown in light of post-trial material, and the court agreed. The cumulative fresh material also rendered his RW convictions unsafe, notwithstanding that the delay-direction criticism did not arise in his trial.

5. The court further held that the presentation of the CCRC references breached the duty under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 to deal with criminal appeals efficiently and expeditiously. It gave practice guidance requiring timely, agreed, indexed and paginated bundles, properly referenced skeleton arguments, and consideration of a core bundle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): CCRC references were heard and the appeals allowed. All convictions were quashed in [2006] EWCA Crim 1353.
• Crown Court at Leeds: Siddall was convicted on 29 July 1999 before His Honour Judge Hoffman. Brooke was convicted on 4 April 2000 before His Honour Judge Charlesworth.