R v Christopher Hindley

Directions about delay in historic sexual abuse cases must reflect the circumstances and issues at trial. They should address prejudice to the defence and its relevance to the prosecution’s burden of proof. Difficulties affecting prosecution witnesses must not be presented as counterbalancing that prejudice. A tailored good character direction addressing an allegation-free period after the alleged offending may be appropriate, but its formulation involves judicial judgment. An omission does not automatically make convictions unsafe. Safety must be assessed in the context of the directions, evidence and trial as a whole.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Liverpool of 17 offences involving historic sexual abuse of C, a younger family relation. The alleged offending occurred between 1989 and 1995. The appellant denied the allegations and relied on his good character, medical evidence contradicting C’s description of a birthmark, and evidence from his sister challenging opportunities for the alleged offending. He received an effective custodial term of 12 years with an extended licence of one year.

With the single judge’s permission, the appellant appealed against conviction. He challenged the adequacy of the directions concerning the delay of 30 to 36 years and his good character. He argued that the judge had insufficiently addressed prejudice to his defence and should have invited the jury to give considerable weight to his good character. The central issue was whether those directions had secured a fair trial and whether the convictions were safe.

Appeal dismissed. The convictions were safe.

1. The formulation of a delay direction depended on the circumstances and issues at trial. The authorities did not prescribe a universal blueprint. The direction should address the potential disadvantage to the defendant, fading memories, unavailable evidence and the relevance of that prejudice to whether the prosecution had proved guilt. The particular matters identified in R v PS [2013] EWCA Crim 992 were expressly tied to that case’s facts (paras 29–35).

2. The directions adequately addressed those matters. They explained the increasing difficulty of defending old allegations, the loss of potentially relevant CCTV and the inability to advance possible alibis because incidents could not be dated precisely. No additional main element of prejudice raised at trial had been identified as omitted. The defence also had substantial evidential arguments beyond denial and good character (paras 36–40).

3. A reference to the effect of time on prosecution witnesses did not dilute the protection afforded to the defendant. The judge explained how those difficulties impaired the defence. She did not present them as counterbalancing defence prejudice or assisting the prosecution to discharge its burden. The birthmark evidence had been addressed in the evidential summing up and emphasised by defence counsel. Its significance to C’s reliability was obvious, and its omission from the delay direction was not a misdirection (paras 41–42).

4. The good character direction satisfied the ordinary credibility and propensity requirements. Whether to add a direction concerning good character since the alleged offending involved judicial judgment. The exceptional circumstances in R v Percival, including the strength and centrality of good character as the available defence, were materially different. It would nevertheless have been preferable to invite consideration of whether the appellant’s positive character and the absence of allegations for over 30 years made the alleged offending less likely (paras 43–48).

5. Under R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631, a defective good character direction did not require automatic quashing. Even assuming the additional direction should have been given, the convictions remained safe. The delay directions were adequate, the remaining summing up and trial were unchallenged, and the defence had advanced substantial evidential challenges. Trial counsel’s acceptance of the proposed directions also indicated that those who understood the trial’s dynamics considered it fair (paras 48–51).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 1336 , dismissed the appeal against conviction and held that the convictions were safe.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: Following trial before Her Honour Judge Pierpoint, the appellant was convicted of all 17 counts on 9 June 2025. On 21 July 2025, he received an effective custodial term of 12 years with an extended licence of one year. The appeal concerned the convictions.