Miles, R. v

A deceased witness’s recorded interview may properly be admitted as hearsay where the statutory conditions are met and the trial remains fair. The absence of cross-examination is a serious limitation, but it does not make a conviction unsafe if the jury can assess the witness’s reliability through the recording, identified inconsistencies, other evidence, adversarial submissions and suitable judicial directions.

Where an offence under Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 14 predates 16 September 1985, the ordinary maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment. The higher maximum for a victim under 13 is unavailable unless the victim’s age is stated in the indictment.

At Bristol Crown Court, Keith Miles was convicted of numerous historic sexual offences and received a total sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment. He appealed against his conviction for rape on count 9, which depended principally on the video-recorded police interview of EP, who had died before trial.

The interview had been admitted under the hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The defence contended that EP’s confusion about dates and age, her alleged agoraphobia, and the absence of cross-examination made the evidence unreliable and rendered the conviction unsafe.

A separate sentence appeal concerned counts 10 to 14, indecent assaults contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The issue was whether sentences of four years exceeded the applicable statutory maximum where the indictment did not state that the victim was under 13.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The trial judge had given a fully reasoned and balanced ruling admitting EP’s recorded interview under section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Court of Appeal held that the ruling was sustainable and that its admission did not make the trial unfair or the conviction unsafe.

2. The inability to cross-examine EP was a serious limitation. It was nevertheless properly taken into account both when admitting the evidence and when directing the jury. The jury could view the recording and assess the witness’s demeanour, confusion and inconsistencies. They could also assess the evidence against the appellant, the evidence bearing on her reliability, and the limited supporting evidence.

3. EP’s errors and apparent confusion did not require her evidence to be rejected as inherently unreliable. They did not concern the central issue of whether the rape occurred and were matters the jury could evaluate. There was no medical or other evidence that she lacked competence to give evidence or was otherwise unreliable.

4. The sentence appeal was allowed. The Court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal. The offences on counts 10 to 14 were contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and were committed before 16 September 1985. As LD’s age was not stated in the indictment, the maximum sentence on each count was two years’ imprisonment.

5. The four-year sentences on counts 10 to 14 were quashed and replaced with concurrent two-year sentences, consecutive to the sentences on the other counts. The total sentence was reduced from 19 years to 17 years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against conviction on count 9. Allowed the sentence appeal on counts 10 to 14 and substituted lawful sentences.
• Bristol Crown Court: On 10 November 2009, convicted the appellant of 14 counts of indecent assault, attempted rape and two counts of rape. On 8 February 2010, imposed a total sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment.