REGINA v MANOJ BHATT

Trial judges have a broad discretion to impose and enforce time limits on cross-examination, particularly in sexual-offence trials, but fairness remains the touchstone. A limit must not be arbitrary. Its enforcement should allow flexibility where counsel has used the time competently and needs only a few minutes to put an important part of the case. An unsatisfactory episode does not necessarily make a conviction unsafe: the appellate court assesses the trial as a whole. Jury directions addressing myths and stereotypes about sexual offending, demeanour and delayed complaint are permissible when tailored to the issues and accompanied by reminders that credibility and weight remain matters for the jury. There is no typical response to sexual offending, and neither delayed complaint nor immediate complaint determines truthfulness.

After a ten-day trial in the Crown Court at Harrow before His Honour Judge Cole (T20197436), the appellant was convicted on 12 serious sexual offences and received a total special custodial sentence of 19 years. He appealed with leave on two grounds: that the trial judge had unfairly imposed and enforced a time limit on his cross-examination of the principal complainant, and that directions concerning myths, stereotypes, children and young people were unfairly weighted against the defence. The central issue was whether the conduct of the trial, considered as a whole, rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. Time limits. The court accepted that trial judges have a broad discretion to set and enforce time limits on cross-examination. The touchstone is fairness, and the discretion must not compromise the fairness of the trial. The principle was supported by R v Butt [2005] EWCA Crim 805 at [16]. The limit imposed here was tight but fell within the range of decisions open to the judge and was not arbitrary.
2. Enforcement of the guillotine. The judge was entitled to curtail the cross-examination because the witness was distressed and prolonged questioning might produce diminishing returns. However, counsel had used his time competently, the witness was not then distressed, and only a few minutes were needed to put an important part of the defence case. The judge could have allowed that short extension or explained more carefully why the limit had to be maintained.
3. The manner in which the limit was enforced was peremptory and confrontational. It created legitimate concerns that the jury might undervalue defence counsel’s contribution or the importance of the family meeting. The rolled-up final question and the witness’s answer nevertheless conveyed the opposing cases with reasonable clarity.
4. Safety of the convictions. The episode had to be assessed in the context of the trial as a whole. The judge was otherwise courteous, reasonable and even-handed. The family meeting was explored through three other witnesses and was fairly summarised. The jury could not have been in doubt about its importance or about the competing accounts. The identified risk of unfairness was therefore substantially dissipated, and the convictions were not unsafe.
5. Jury directions. Directions warning against stereotypical assumptions about demeanour, sexual offending and delayed complaint were appropriate and necessary to prevent unfair reasoning. They did not require the jury to accept the complainant’s evidence. The judge repeatedly made clear that credibility and weight were matters for the jury alone. A late complaint does not necessarily indicate falsity, just as an immediate complaint does not necessarily establish truth. The directions were tailored to the defence case and were fair to both parties.
6. The judge’s indication that the jury might deliberate until 6 pm on the Friday was exceptional and would require very cogent justification if ever appropriate. It was not a separate ground of appeal and did not alter the conclusion that the trial had been fair. Appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 7 July 2022, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction: [2022] EWCA Crim 926.
• Crown Court at Harrow — Following a ten-day trial, the appellant was convicted on 12 February 2021 of 12 serious sexual offences and sentenced to a total special custodial sentence of 19 years.