[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> A R M, R v [2003] EWCA Crim 281 (5 February 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2003/281.html Cite as: [2003] EWCA Crim 281

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		Wednesday, 5 February 2003

1. LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: On 18th April 1996 A R M was convicted of two offences of indecent assault for which he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. He was acquitted on the same occasion of a similar offence involving a third girl. The two offences of which he was convicted were in relation to sisters for whom he was in the habit of babysitting in the period March 1990 to September 1994. He has ever since continued to protest his innocence. He sought leave to appeal in 1997. Having been refused by the single judge. His renewed application was refused by the full court. At a later date he noticed a report in a newspaper which persuaded him to approach the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It is as a result of investigations carried out by the Commission that the matter has returned to this court on further appeal and we say at once that it is our intention to allow the appeal and quash the convictions recorded against Mr M in 1996.
2. In view of that, it is not necessary to dwell upon the circumstances of the case but simply to outline very briefly our reasons for taking the proposed course.
3. We have said that the allegation against Mr M was that during times when he babysat these two young sisters, who were both under the age of ten at the relevant times, he had indulged in acts of indecency with them, the nature of which it is not necessary to describe. The time came when the two girls told the man with whom their mother was living, effectively their stepfather, what had been happening. He immediately went out and attacked Mr M and it was as a result of that complaint being made in that way that the authorities became involved and Mr M was eventually interviewed and charged. It is right to say that throughout he has denied having behaved in that way, or in any way like it.
4. What Mr M had seen in the newspaper was a report that the man we shall refer to as the stepfather had himself been convicted of offences involving these two children (as they then were) and also of offences involving the third girl in respect of whom Mr M had been acquitted. When the Commission came to investigate the matter further, it appeared that the period over which the stepfather had been committing offences corresponded, in part at any rate, with the period over which it had been alleged that Mr M had been committing offences and, perhaps more to the point, that the nature of the offences alleged against the stepfather bore a striking resemblance to the allegations which had been made in the case of Mr M .
5. The matter was of course disturbing because at the trial a difficulty facing those representing Mr M was to explain how it could be that these little girls, otherwise inexperienced, could give circumstantial accounts of what had happened to them. Of course once it is recognised that they were suffering in a similar way at the hands of their stepfather an explanation comes readily to mind. More than that, whereas the two sisters continued to maintain that they had been assaulted indecently by the appellant, they nevertheless said in the course of their evidence given via video link that he had been the only person ever to treat them in that way, thus throwing some doubt upon their reliability if not their veracity.
6. The Commission now takes the view that the matter is worthy of reconsideration by this Court because if that material, that is to say the evidence relating to the offences admittedly committed by the stepfather, had been before the court on the first occasion, it is by no means certain that the outcome would have been the same.
7. Mr Carr who represents the Crown on this occasion concedes that to be the case. We have been fortunate to receive from him his analysis of the effect that this additional information may well have had in regard to the original trial. We accept what he has to say. We also, of course, accept the submissions which Mr Germain was about to make before he was cut short, those submissions being unnecessary in all the circumstances.
8. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and quash the two convictions.
9. Lest we have said anything in the course of this judgment which might enable others to discover the identity of the young women (as they now are), let it be made plain that nothing is to be reported which might have that effect.
10. MR GERMAIN: I am much obliged to your Lordships. Would your Lordship please make a defendant's costs order in the sum of £120 to compensate the appellant for his travel expenses in coming down here? He has been here.
11. LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: He is here today, is he?
12. MR GERMAIN: My Lord, yes, he is.
13. LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: Appeal allowed, convictions quashed, defendant's costs order in the sum of £120. Thank you both.
14. MR CARR: My Lord, so it is absolutely plain, the Crown would not invite this court to even consider a retrial. I thought I would mention it in open court so that the appellant can hear it.
15. LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: Thank you very much, Mr Carr. Yes, you made that plain in your written submissions and I am afraid in giving the judgment of the court I neglected to mention it. Thank you very much.