R v Aaron Hewson
[2023] EWCA Crim 1657
Michael Woodcock v R
23 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 333
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of raping his sister decades ago. The judge's summary of the case to the jury was too short and didn't fairly explain the defense's arguments. The conviction was overturned, a new trial was held, and the man was found not guilty.
Key Facts
- •Michael Woodcock (appellant) was charged with five counts of rape of his sister (V) between 1963 and 1969.
- •The first trial resulted in a hung jury.
- •The second trial resulted in a conviction on all counts by a 10-2 majority verdict.
- •The appeal concerns the adequacy and balance of the judge's summing up.
- •The summing up was relatively brief, lasting approximately 20 minutes for the factual summary.
- •The case involved 14 witnesses and spanned nearly 60 years.
- •The defense argued that the complainant's allegations were fabricated for financial gain related to a will.
- •A previous jury had failed to reach a verdict.
Legal Principles
Brevity in a summing up is not a defect if it is fair and balanced.
Court of Appeal judgment
Sexual Offences Amendment Act 1992: Reporting restrictions apply to protect the complainant's identity.
Sexual Offences Amendment Act 1992
Standard directions of law are required for allegations of sexual offences committed many years ago.
Court of Appeal judgment
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
The summing up was unbalanced, failing to coherently present the defense case and containing unfair passages. The inadequacies of the summing up rendered the conviction unsafe.
Retrial ordered, resulting in acquittal.
Following the quashing of the conviction, a retrial was held where the appellant was acquitted.