Coull, R. v

Where evidence from several complainants is capable of providing cross-support, the jury may use it only if sure that the complaints are independent and unaffected by collusion or conscious or unconscious contamination. Directions must be read as a whole. A warning given when addressing cross-admissibility can also sufficiently address contamination when the same evidence is relied on as propensity evidence.

A judge need not formulate a further contamination direction where that case was not advanced at trial and does not arise from the evidence or the defendant’s specific case.

The appellant was convicted at Teesside Crown Court of five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault. He received concurrent extended sentences for the rape offences, comprising 15 years’ custody and an eight-year extension period.

The prosecution relied on evidence from former partners and another complainant. It contended that similarities in their accounts of possessive, violent and controlling relationships could provide cross-support and demonstrate a pattern of abusive behaviour. The appellant denied the allegations and alleged motives of revenge, grudge and fabrication.

He appealed against conviction, contending that the judge’s directions on cross-admissibility and propensity were defective, that contamination had not been put to the jury, and that there were factual misdirections.

1. Appeal dismissed. The convictions were not unsafe.
2. The trial judge’s directions on cross-admissibility, read fairly and as a whole, required the jury to be sure that the complainants’ accounts were independent before using one account to support another. The directions expressly raised the possibility that the witnesses might have acted together and addressed both collusion and conscious or unconscious contamination. They were consistent with R v N(H) [2011] EWCA Crim 730 and R v Lamb [2007] EWCA Crim 1766.
3. The propensity direction was adequate. In the circumstances, the issue of contamination was closely connected with cross-admissibility and had already been addressed. The judge correctly warned that evidence of a tendency to behave badly did not itself prove guilt on the charged offences. If sure that the evidence established such a tendency, the jury could decide whether, and to what extent, it assisted on an individual count.
4. There was no failure to put a contamination case fairly to the jury. The defence advanced at trial was denial, fabrication motivated by revenge or grudge, and possible police influence following the initial complaint. It did not advance conscious or innocent contamination between the principal complainants. On the specific counts, contamination did not provide an explanation consistent with the appellant’s case.
5. The differentiated verdicts, including acquittals on two counts, reinforced the conclusion that the jury assessed each allegation separately and did not treat guilt on one count as establishing guilt on all.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against conviction dismissed in [2012] EWCA Crim 2893.
• Crown Court at Teesside: The appellant was convicted of five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault. He was sentenced to concurrent extended sentences for the rape offences.