Chapman, R. v

Where historic allegations materially prejudice the defence, the jury should be directed to the particular difficulties which delay has caused the defendant. The direction is fact-sensitive and is not required in every case, but it must not invite the jury to disregard delay or treat its effects on both sides as equivalent.

A defendant’s good character must be considered as evidence relevant both to credibility and to the likelihood of committing the alleged offence. Directions should also prevent a video link or supportive interviewer comments from being treated as evidence favouring the complainant. Serious cumulative defects in these directions may render convictions unsafe because the allegations have not been tested by a fair trial.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Truro of one count of indecent assault on a female and four counts of indecency with a child. He received four years’ imprisonment and had served that sentence before pursuing a substantially out-of-time appeal against conviction.

The allegations concerned sexual abuse said to have occurred many years before the appellant was interviewed. His defence was complete denial and limited opportunity. He relied on the evidential difficulties caused by delay, including deceased potential witnesses, and on his good character.

The appeal challenged the adequacy and fairness of the trial judge’s directions on delay, good character, video-link evidence and supportive remarks made by interviewers during the complainant’s recorded interview.

1. Application and appeal allowed. The court extended time, granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal because the cumulative defects in the summing-up rendered the convictions unsafe. No retrial was ordered because the appellant had already served his sentence.

2. The long interval between the alleged offending and the appellant’s interview created both general and specific disadvantages for the defence. A direction was therefore required. Consistently with R v Percival The Times 20th June 1998, the relevant warning had to focus on the difficulties which delay caused to the defence. It was not enough to treat delay as affecting prosecution and defence equally. The judge instead risked inviting the jury to disregard the material period of delay and treated discrepancies in the complainant’s account favourably because of memory difficulties. That was contrary to the required approach.

3. The good-character direction was also defective. The jury had to take the appellant’s good character into account as evidence bearing both on his credibility and on the improbability of his having committed the alleged conduct. It was not merely a submission made on his behalf, nor an issue separable from the jury’s assessment of the complainant’s truthfulness.

4. The judge should have explained that video-link evidence was used to put the young witness at ease and should not be regarded as prejudicial to the appellant. The jury also required a warning that supportive comments by interviewers during the recorded interview did not indicate where the truth lay.

5. The court made no finding on the truth of the allegations. It held only that they had not been tested through a fair procedure. It directed that the complainant be given a careful explanation of the appeal outcome and its reasons.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2006] EWCA Crim 1656, the court extended time, granted leave and allowed the appeal against conviction. It held that the summing-up defects made the verdicts unsafe and ordered no retrial.

• Crown Court at Truro: The appellant was convicted on 30 October 2002 of indecent assault on a female and four counts of indecency with a child. About a month later he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.