D'ambrosia, R. v

An inadvertent disclosure of an unproven allegation, and evidence of allegations outside the indictment, do not necessarily render a conviction unsafe. The trial judge must give clear and appropriate directions, particularly where character material may affect the jury’s assessment of conflicting accounts.

Where both parties have adduced evidence about the relationship’s background, including without timely objection, the judge may treat that material as relevant context. The jury must nevertheless be directed to concentrate on the charged counts, to disregard inadmissible material, and to apply the burden of proof throughout.

The appellant was convicted at Blackfriars Crown Court of rape and assault by beating. He received an extended sentence of 11 years for rape, comprising eight years’ custody and three years’ extended licence.

During the trial, an edited police-interview transcript inadvertently disclosed that he had previously been accused of violence towards women. The complainant also gave evidence of other alleged violence during the relationship. The parties had agreed that some relationship background, including an earlier police complaint not pursued, could be placed before the jury.

The appeal against conviction alleged that the judge’s directions did not adequately neutralise the cumulative prejudice caused by this material and that the rape conviction was unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The convictions were safe. The jury was not required to be discharged merely because the inadmissible interview passage and further allegations had entered the evidence. The trial process could deal with the matter through proper directions.

2. The judge’s direction to ignore the reference in interview to allegations by other women was sufficient. He identified it as an important direction, explained that the allegations were unproven and of unknown seriousness, and directed the jury to focus on evidence relevant to the charges.

3. The judge was entitled to treat the parties’ allegations and counter-allegations as relationship background. Some background evidence had been expressly agreed. By the summing-up, each side had also given generally adverse evidence about the other outside the central allegation, without contemporaneous objection. The judge could therefore regard there as having been an implied agreement to that limited use.

4. The directions properly distinguished background from the jury’s primary task of determining the indictment counts. The judge had also made clear that the Crown bore the burden of proof and that the appellant had nothing to prove. The jury would understand that disputed background matters had to be approached consistently with those directions.

5. Viewed cumulatively and in the round, nothing that occurred undermined the safety of the convictions. The jury’s later requests concerned the ingredients of rape, not the impugned material, and no further corrective direction was sought during deliberations.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction: [2015] EWCA Crim 182.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: convicted the appellant of rape and assault by beating, and imposed an extended sentence for rape on 24 January 2013.