R v Feige Yu

A trial judge may refuse cross-examination about an unverified message where no evidence connects the complainant with it. However, where the defence has expressly requested that the complainant be asked whether she operated or was involved in the relevant account, failure to investigate may provide a viable ground of appeal. If the complainant accepts involvement, preventing proper cross-examination may render the conviction unsafe. A judge is not required to comment on material contained only in a witness statement which was not before the jury, and retains control over the matters on which to comment.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Bristol of two counts of rape and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment concurrently. He sought an extension of 129 days and leave to appeal against conviction.

The referred grounds concerned the refusal of cross-examination of the complainant about a WeChat message from an account called Strawberry, which sought money to stop the proceedings, and the judge’s failure to remind the jury about errors in a witness statement given by Y concerning the dates of the complainant’s disclosures. A further issue arose concerning the failure to investigate whether the complainant operated or was involved with the Strawberry account.

The full court rejected the formulated ground concerning the WeChat message. On the evidence then available, there was nothing connecting the complainant with the Strawberry account. The trial judge was therefore entitled to refuse cross-examination aimed at suggesting that the complainant had sought money to withdraw the proceedings.

1. Failure to investigate the account. The court identified a separate and potentially important issue. Despite an express defence request, the complainant had not been asked whether she operated the account or was directly or indirectly involved in sending the message. If she had accepted involvement, proper cross-examination on the message would have been available and the conviction might have been unsafe. The applicant had not formulated the existing ground to raise that issue, so the court directed that a fresh ground be drafted.
2. Evidence concerning Y’s statement. Y had said in evidence that the dates in her police statement were mistaken. The jury had not seen the statement, and the evidence did not establish an earlier complaint in November. There was consequently no basis for the judge to refer to the statement. The matters on which a judge comments are for the judge, and the second ground was dismissed.
3. Further procedure. The applicant was directed to draft the additional ground, with the Crown given 21 days to respond by Respondent’s Notice. If the complainant denied involvement, there was likely to be no viable ground on this issue. If she confirmed involvement, the appeal might be difficult to resist. The application for leave was therefore not finally determined in the judgment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1066, rejected the ground concerning cross-examination on the Strawberry message, dismissed the ground concerning Y’s statement, and directed formulation of a further ground concerning the failure to investigate the account.
• Crown Court at Bristol: Convicted the applicant of two counts of rape on 19 September 2023 and sentenced him on 20 September 2023 to nine years’ imprisonment on each count, concurrent.