R v Adam Courtney-Kasher
[2024] EWCA Crim 256
R v BHB
22 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 834
Court of Appeal
A man was accused of sexually abusing his niece. Some of the charges were dropped due to mistakes in the girl's initial statements. The court decided the remaining charges had enough evidence to support a guilty verdict, even with the mistakes. The man appealed, saying the trial was unfair, but the court disagreed, saying the judge handled the problems well, and the conviction was safe.
Key Facts
- •C (born July 2008) alleged sexual abuse by BHB (her uncle) when she was 7-8 years old.
- •Allegations came to light when C confided in friends, then her brother, leading to police involvement.
- •BHB was approximately 15 years old at the time of the alleged abuse.
- •Abuse allegedly occurred in both London and Hertfordshire during a family crisis involving C's severely disabled brother.
- •Seven counts of sexual offences were initially charged, but three were withdrawn due to inconsistencies in C's statements regarding dates and locations.
- •BHB was convicted of one count of rape of a child under 13 and three counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
- •BHB received suspended sentences and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
- •The Attorney General's appeal against the leniency of the sentences was unsuccessful.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions apply under Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to protect the complainant's identity.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
The test for a 'no case to answer' submission is whether a properly directed jury could convict on the prosecution evidence.
Case Law (implied)
A jury should not be discharged unless there is an 'evident necessity'.
Case Law (Winsor v R (1866) LR 1 QB 390)
The prosecutor must disclose any material that might undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996).
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
The court found no material unfairness in the trial proceedings, and no substantial risk that the jury speculated on the dismissed counts. While there were disclosure failures, the court determined they did not render the conviction unsafe.
Ground 1 (refusal to discharge the jury) dismissed.
No evident necessity existed to discharge the jury; the judge correctly managed the inconsistencies in the evidence and ensured a fair trial.
Ground 2 (no case to answer on counts 3-6) dismissed.
Sufficient evidence existed to support the remaining counts, even considering inconsistencies in C's testimony.
Ground 3 (exclusion of evidence from S) dismissed.
The excluded evidence was irrelevant to the remaining counts.
Grounds 4-6 (jury directions) dismissed.
The jury directions adequately addressed the inconsistencies and prevented speculation, despite not using the word 'speculation'.
Ground 7 (disclosure failures) dismissed.
While disclosure failures occurred, they did not prevent the appellant from presenting his case in its best light or render the conviction unsafe.