Key Facts
- •Grahame Brennand, a former primary school teacher, was convicted in 2018 of 17 counts of indecent assault and 3 counts of cruelty to a person under 16.
- •The convictions stemmed from allegations made by 25 women and 2 men, all former pupils, detailing incidents between 1973 and 1989.
- •Brennand appealed his conviction in 2022, significantly delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related issues accessing legal counsel in prison.
- •The appeal focused on the trial judge's directions to the jury on cross-admissibility of evidence and the burden of proof.
- •The judge's directions included guidance on propensity and coincidence, and also addressed the 'why' question regarding the complainants' delayed allegations.
Legal Principles
Time limits for appeals against conviction can be extended under section 18(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, but only if it is in the interests of justice.
R v Paterson [2022] EWCA Crim 456
In cross-admissibility cases, the prosecution must give notice of a bad character application under Crim PR, Rule 21.1, unless the issue is common ground from the outset.
R v BQC [2021] EWCA Crim 1944
Directions on both propensity and coincidence in cross-admissibility cases should be given only where appropriate to the facts, and the judge must ensure the jury avoids 'double counting'.
R v N(H) [2011] EWCA Crim 730; R v Gunning [2018] EWCA Crim 677; Crown Court Compendium §13-9
The burden of proof remains on the prosecution, even when considering the 'why' question about the timing of allegations.
Case law implicitly throughout the judgment
Outcomes
The application for an extension of time was refused.
The delay was substantial and not adequately explained, despite the challenges posed by the pandemic. The grounds of appeal did not outweigh the principle of finality in litigation.
Leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
The court found no real prospect of success on the grounds of appeal relating to cross-admissibility and burden of proof. The judge's directions, while including both propensity and coincidence guidance, were deemed fair and appropriate.