Carrington-Jones, R v

Fresh evidence may render convictions unsafe where it establishes that a central complainant had a proved tendency to fabricate allegations of sexual crime. Where there is no independent supporting evidence, such material may destroy the complainant’s credibility and require the convictions to be quashed.

The effect on another complainant must be assessed on the particular facts. It may also make that evidence unsafe where the accounts were not independent, the complainants had a close relationship and there was a material similarity in their allegations.

The appellant was convicted at Lewes Crown Court in December 2000 of eight sexual offences against his nieces, KJ and LJ, including two counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault in respect of each girl. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. His defence was that both allegations were fabricated.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the convictions after obtaining fresh evidence about later allegations made by KJ. That evidence included her admission that she had fabricated allegations of repeated rape against her stepfather, for which she received a police caution, and a later admission that another rape allegation was false.

The central issue was whether the fresh evidence made the convictions in respect of KJ, and consequentially those in respect of LJ, unsafe.

Disposition

1. The court allowed the appeal and quashed all eight convictions. The fresh evidence demonstrated that the convictions were unsafe.

2. KJ had admitted at trial that she had lied and made false allegations on other matters. The post-trial evidence went substantially further. It established a proved tendency to fabricate allegations that she was the victim of sexual crime. In the absence of other supporting evidence, that material damaged her credibility beyond repair. The convictions based on her allegations could not safely stand.

3. The court also quashed the convictions relating to LJ. The trial judge had correctly directed the jury that the sisters’ allegations could not corroborate each other because they were not independent. The fresh evidence about KJ nevertheless directly affected the assessment of LJ’s evidence. LJ wished above all to remain with KJ, made her allegations after learning of KJ’s allegations, and gave an account with telling similarities. On the circumstances of this case, the convictions concerning LJ could not safely be upheld.

4. The court added general observations about false allegations of serious sexual crime. Such allegations may have grave consequences for an innocent person and for public confidence in genuine complaints. A police caution will only rarely be sufficient for a detailed false allegation capable of amounting to an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Those observations did not affect the safety of the convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court allowed the appeal and quashed all eight convictions: [2007] EWCA Crim 2551.
• Crown Court at Lewes: In December 2000, the appellant was convicted by a jury of eight sexual offences and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.