Halahan v R

Delay and lost records do not of themselves make a criminal trial unfair. The court must distinguish speculation about what missing material might reveal from a significant and demonstrable prospect that identified lost evidence would decisively, or strongly, support a case on a specific issue. It must assess the resulting prejudice in the case as a whole and decide whether appropriate judicial directions can cure it.

Different verdicts on separate counts do not make convictions unsafe where the jury had rational grounds to require proof of different alleged circumstances. Exceptional deterioration in an offender’s physical and mental health may justify a substantial reduction in sentence, notwithstanding the public interest in custody.

The appellant was convicted at Portsmouth Crown Court of three counts of indecent assault contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The allegations concerned conduct towards a boy resident in a children’s home during the mid-1970s. He received concurrent sentences of 21 months’ imprisonment.

He appealed against conviction on the grounds that the long delay and loss of contemporaneous records required a stay for abuse of process, or made the convictions unsafe. He also submitted that the jury’s acquittals on two counts were inconsistent with its guilty verdicts on the remaining counts. On sentence, he relied on his advanced age and deteriorating physical and mental health.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court adopted the reasoning in RD [2013] EWCA Crim 1592. An allegation of prejudice from lost records requires more than speculation about what the material might have shown. The court must identify lost evidence directly relevant to a specific issue, assess its likely importance, and decide whether directions can fairly address any prejudice.

2. The missing children’s-home records did not demonstrate irremediable prejudice. It was speculative that they would have recorded the detail of the complainant’s allegation or that any police record would have done so. The trial judge was entitled to conclude that the available evidence, control of admissibility, and careful directions enabled a fair trial. The directions properly left the defence argument about the evidential lacuna for the jury’s assessment.

3. The jury’s verdicts were not illogical. The counts required proof of different circumstances, including particular locations and events. There were rational reasons to acquit on counts where the location or later account created difficulties, while accepting other allegations. The jury had also heard evidence capable of supporting the complainant’s consistency on material matters. Its approach was appropriately cautious and did not render the convictions unsafe.

4. The appeal against sentence was allowed. Although the original concurrent terms were not intrinsically excessive, the appellant’s steadily deteriorating physical and mental condition, his confusion in custody, and the exceptional circumstances justified intervention. Concurrent sentences of nine months’ imprisonment were substituted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed, with concurrent sentences of nine months’ imprisonment substituted.
• Crown Court at Portsmouth: the appellant was convicted of three counts of indecent assault contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and sentenced to concurrent terms of 21 months’ imprisonment.