R v Adam Courtney-Kasher
[2024] EWCA Crim 256
R v ABY
6 August 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 944
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of child sexual abuse. Later, the victim made new, possibly false, accusations. The court decided the new accusations didn't change the fact that the original conviction was fair, and the man's appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •ABY was convicted in 2013 of six counts of rape of a child under 13, three counts of sexual assault of a child under 13, and three counts of cruelty to a person under 16.
- •He received an 18-year prison sentence.
- •A 2014 appeal partially succeeded, reducing the cruelty sentence but not the overall sentence.
- •New allegations against the complainant (X) emerged after the trial, including allegations against a prosecution witness (P) and an unidentified person.
- •The CCRC referred the conviction to the Court of Appeal based on concerns about X's credibility.
- •ABY also sought to appeal on the admissibility of expert medical evidence from Dr. Atkin.
Legal Principles
The safety of a conviction is undermined if new material could reasonably have affected the jury's decision.
Dial and Dottin v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2004] UKPC 4
Competence of a witness to give evidence is determined by statutory criteria (Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, sections 53(1) and (3)).
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Bad character evidence may be admissible if it has substantial probative value regarding a witness's credibility (R v Clark [2016] EWCA Crim 2030).
R v Clark [2016] EWCA Crim 2030
The Court of Appeal may grant leave to appeal on additional grounds, even if previously rejected, if there is cogent evidence or argument not previously properly developed (R v Knights [2017] EWCA Crim 1052).
R v Knights [2017] EWCA Crim 1052
Expert evidence must comply with Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules.
Part 19 Crim PR
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court found that the new material, while raising concerns about X's credibility in later allegations, did not undermine the safety of the convictions for the original offenses. The inconsistencies highlighted were deemed not significant enough to overturn the convictions, given the jury's opportunity to assess X's evidence and the overall strength of the prosecution case at the original trial.
Application for leave to appeal on ground 3 (admissibility of Dr. Atkin's evidence) refused.
The Court found that Dr. Atkin's evidence did not exceed the trial judge's ruling on admissibility, and that any perceived errors did not prejudice the appellant's case.