R v EDC

In historical sexual-offence trials, the absence of documentary records does not by itself make the trial unfair or constitute an abuse of process. The court must assess actual and serious prejudice, which may justify staying some counts while others proceed. A hearsay ruling concerning recorded interviews of a deceased complainant is not arguably wrong where the trial judge applies the relevant law, considers disclosure and credibility issues, and leaves material enabling the jury to assess the evidence. On a renewed application for leave to appeal, grounds are not arguable where the trial judge addressed the correct questions and no material unfairness or legal error is shown.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Leeds on four historical sexual-offence counts concerning alleged abuse of his stepsisters. One further count was stayed as an abuse of process. The applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction, arguing that transcripts of interviews with a deceased complainant had been wrongly admitted as hearsay because of inadequate disclosure, and that the remaining counts should also have been stayed because of the substantial delay and missing records. A single judge refused leave. The renewed application concerned whether those proposed grounds were arguable.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Lavender, agreed with the single judge’s reasons and dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal.

1. Hearsay evidence. The trial judge had considered the disclosure alleged to be inadequate, the effect on the deceased complainant’s credibility, and whether the jury had sufficient material to assess the weight of her interview evidence. The court found no arguable error in the admission ruling under the hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, nor in the decision not to exclude the evidence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
2. Historical allegations and fairness. Historical allegations will often be tried without surviving documentary records. That circumstance does not itself render a trial unfair. The question is whether the defendant suffers serious prejudice, assessed in relation to the individual counts. A count may be stayed where such prejudice is established, while other counts may proceed where the defendant can challenge the evidence and explain matters such as his whereabouts and the alleged witnesses’ lack of truthfulness.
3. Disposition. The applicant had been able to give evidence, challenge the allegations, and rely on the judge’s directions. The jury had not convicted on every count. The proposed grounds therefore disclosed no arguable error. The application was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2025] EWCA Crim 1428: dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal.
• Single judge: refused leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Leeds: convicted the applicant on four counts on 18 November 2024 and stayed one further count as an abuse of process.