AHC v Regina

Where the prosecution does not rely on cross-admissibility between complainants’ evidence, there is no automatic requirement for a direction beyond the ordinary instruction to consider each count separately. The adequacy of the directions depends on the facts, the evidence and the summing up as a whole.

Evidence of other misconduct that is bad-character evidence, rather than evidence concerning the facts of the charged offences, should be identified and the jury should ordinarily be directed on its proper use. An omitted direction will not make convictions unsafe where the evidence on the charged counts was strong and the verdicts demonstrate that the jury decided those counts on the complainants’ evidence rather than by impermissible bolstering.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Sheffield of 16 historic sexual offences against his daughter and granddaughter. He was acquitted of three counts, including the sole count concerning a second granddaughter, and received a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.

With an extension of time, he appealed against conviction on two grounds. First, he contended that, because the prosecution did not seek cross-admissibility, the recorder should have expressly prohibited the jury from using one complainant’s evidence to support another’s. Secondly, he contended that the recorder should have directed the jury on evidence of misconduct described by the appellant’s son.

The central issue was whether the summing up, including those omissions, rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The recorder’s direction that the jury must consider the case on each count separately was sufficient in the circumstances.

2. Where the prosecution relies on cross-admissibility, the judge must give an appropriate direction on the jury’s use of that evidence. However, where it does not do so, an additional prohibition on using one complainant’s evidence in relation to another is not automatically required. The adequacy of the direction turns on the facts and the summing up as a whole. R v Adams [2019] EWCA Crim 1363 and R v H [2011] EWCA Crim 2344 did not impose a contrary inflexible rule.

3. Here, the recorder repeatedly identified the counts to which each complainant’s evidence related. He gave a detailed, balanced and separately organised review of that evidence and the defence case. The acquittals, particularly on the sole count concerning C2, confirmed that the jury understood the need to assess each count on its own evidence. There was therefore no need for a further direction and the first ground failed.

4. The Corfu and Norfolk Broads evidence was bad-character evidence. It did not fall within section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, because it did not concern the facts of the offences charged. A direction would ordinarily have been appropriate: if sure of the evidence, the jury could use it in support of the complainants’ evidence, but could not convict on that evidence alone.

5. Its omission did not make the convictions unsafe. The evidence of C1 and C3 was strong. The acquittals showed that the jury had not used the other-misconduct evidence to bolster weak allegations, but had convicted on the complainants’ evidence. The second ground also failed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction: [2022] EWCA Crim 925.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: on 31 October 2016, convicted the appellant of 16 sexual offences and acquitted him of three counts; imposed a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.