R v Lee Hammill
[2024] EWCA Crim 519
R v Ben Mason
23 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 777
Court of Appeal
A man was found guilty of sexually abusing a child. He tried to appeal, saying the trial wasn't fair because the child's testimony was recorded. The court disagreed, saying there was enough evidence to convict him, even with the recorded testimony, and refused his appeal.
Key Facts
- •Ben Mason (37) convicted of five offences: two counts of causing/inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; one count of rape of a child under 13 (oral); two counts of rape of a child under 13 (anal).
- •Victim ('A') was a nine-year-old boy at the time of the offences; Mason was 28-29.
- •Offences occurred during fishing trips where Mason took A and his friends; A's mother gave permission.
- •Evidence included police interviews with A, recorded cross-examination of A (under section 28, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999), statements from A's family.
- •Mason had previous convictions: pleading guilty in 2017 to making indecent images of A and sexual assault of another child.
- •Mason's defense argued A's testimony was unreliable due to past instances of lying and fabrication, supported by social services and teacher reports.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply, preventing the identification of victims.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 allows for video recording of child witnesses' evidence and cross-examination.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
The defendant has a right to a fair trial, even with measures in place to protect vulnerable witnesses.
Case law: R v YGM [2018] EWCA Crim 2458, R v PMH [2018] EWCA Crim 2452
Outcomes
Leave to appeal against conviction refused.
The court found that the trial was fair. The jury had access to sufficient evidence, including the recorded interview and cross-examination of the child, along with supporting evidence of A's past dishonesty and Mason's prior convictions. The judge's directions to the jury were deemed adequate.
Application for an extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal also refused.
No purpose would be served by granting an extension of time, given the court's finding that there was no arguable basis for appeal.