Hyde-Gomes, R v

A criminal conviction is not unsafe merely because relevant material is disclosed late or the trial is interrupted, where the defence has a proper opportunity to address the material and no actual prejudice results.

Evidence of non-sexual domestic violence may properly remain before the jury where it forms part of the case and is necessary to explain an accused’s account of an apparent admission. A defendant in that position is not entitled to a full good-character direction. A direction on a complainant’s distress is adequate where it requires the jury to be satisfied that the distress was genuine and related to the alleged sexual offending.

The timing of a majority direction is for the trial judge’s judgment, absent a sound basis for inferring improper pressure on the jury.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Croydon of eleven counts of indecent assault and one count of attempted rape arising from historic allegations by a child complainant within his family. He received an overall sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.

Following an Attorney General’s Reference, the Court of Appeal increased the sentence to sixteen years’ imprisonment in Attorney General's Reference (R v Hyde-Gomes) [2018] EWCA Crim 2364. The applicant then sought leave to appeal against his convictions on ten grounds. The grounds concerned late disclosure, an interruption during his evidence, evidence of domestic violence, the summing-up, the handling of jury questions and the majority direction.

The central issue was whether any individual complaint, or their cumulative effect, rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal. None of the grounds was arguable, whether considered separately or cumulatively, and there was no good reason to doubt the safety of the convictions.

2. The late disclosure of the complainant’s mother’s hospital records was unfortunate but caused no unfairness. The prosecution made admissions which enabled the defence to rely on the points arising from the records. The defence did not seek to recall the mother, and the court found no prejudice from the timing of the disclosure. The interruption while the applicant was giving evidence was undesirable, but the defence used the period to consider the records and agree facts. It did not render the trial unfair.

3. The possible defence witness had not been called, and no potentially helpful evidence which he had been unable to give was identified. His presence while the complainant gave evidence therefore afforded no basis for challenge.

4. The Recorder had not excluded all evidence of domestic violence. In any event, the applicant admitted violence towards the family as part of his explanation for his recorded apology. That evidence was consequently a necessary part of the defence case. The Recorder’s limited good-character direction was at least as favourable as the applicant was entitled to receive.

5. The direction on distress properly required the jury to decide whether the complainant’s distress was genuine and attributable to the alleged sexual abuse. The summing-up fairly identified the essential conflict between the complainant’s evidence and the applicant’s denial. There was no factual basis for the assertion that the jury viewed the unedited interview recording.

6. The Recorder’s answer to the jury’s question about the precise room in which an incident occurred did not disclose an error on the available material. Once the jury had retired for two hours and ten minutes, the timing of a majority direction was for the Recorder. There was no basis for finding that it exerted improper time pressure.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney General’s Reference, the overall sentence was increased from ten to sixteen years in Attorney General's Reference (R v Hyde-Gomes) [2018] EWCA Crim 2364.
• Crown Court at Croydon: On 11 April 2018, the applicant was convicted of eleven counts of indecent assault and one count of attempted rape. On 12 April 2018, he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.