Taylor v The Queen

Evidence said to demonstrate a complainant’s dishonesty must be assessed rigorously in its context before it is admitted to undermine credibility. Vague and unverified conversations between young children about sexual activity may lack substantial probative value. They do not amount to a previous false complaint merely because they accompanied a complaint of sexual abuse.

A summing-up is assessed in the context of the whole trial. It is not unsafe merely because the judge spends more time on the complainant’s evidence, where the defence case is clear and fairly put. On sentence, a judge may assess criminality from all the evidence, provided the assessment is consistent with the jury’s verdicts.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Wood Green of two sexual assaults on his young niece. He was acquitted of two further sexual-assault counts and of rape. He also pleaded guilty to possessing extreme pornographic images and received an overall sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment.

His conviction appeal challenged the exclusion of proposed evidence from two friends of the complainant. It was said to show that, when making her allegation, she had made false claims about sexual activity. He also challenged the fairness of the summing-up. His sentence appeal contended that the judge had sentenced on a factual basis inconsistent with the rape acquittal.

1. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed. The proposed evidence about alleged claims of sexual activity was properly excluded. The court applied the statutory bad-character threshold and held that the evidence was too vague, unverified and context-dependent to have substantial probative value on a matter of substantial importance.
2. The evidence did not concern a previous false complaint of a sexual matter. The complainant had not alleged sexual misconduct by anyone other than the appellant. Permitting the proposed questioning would also have risked an impermissible investigation into the complainant’s own sexual experience. The judge was therefore entitled to reject the application under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Justice Act 1999 and section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The court distinguished the false-complaint situation discussed in R v V [2006] EWCA Crim 1901.
3. The summing-up did not undermine the safety of the convictions. Although the judge devoted greater attention to the complainant’s evidence, the defence was straightforward and was put to the jury. The jury had heard the evidence and closing speeches, and its differentiated verdicts showed that it understood the issues and the conflict of evidence.
4. The sentencing judge did not sentence the appellant for penetration or rape. He was entitled to assess the extent of the sexual criminality from all the evidence, so long as the assessment was consistent with the acquittal of rape. The resulting three-year sentence for the sexual assaults was within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines Council bracket. The clerical error concerning the prevention order was to be corrected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence: [2014] EWCA Crim 618.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: the appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault, acquitted of further sexual-assault and rape counts, and sentenced for those assaults and a separate guilty plea to possessing extreme pornographic images.