R v ALD
[2023] EWCA Crim 967
R v Josh Abbott
14 February 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 227
Court of Appeal
A man was found guilty of rape, but the police didn't show the defense important pictures of bruises until the trial was nearly over. Because this was unfair, the judge threw out the guilty verdict and ordered a new trial.
Key Facts
- •Josh Abbott was convicted of rape at York Crown Court.
- •The complainant alleged two sexual encounters: one consensual, one non-consensual.
- •Significant delays and failures in police investigation and disclosure occurred.
- •Crucially, a body map from a Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) visit by the complainant was not disclosed until after her testimony.
- •The body map showed bruises, raising questions about consistency with the complainant's account of being bitten.
- •The defense was unaware of the SARC visit and related documentation until the trial.
- •The defense argued that the late disclosure caused significant prejudice.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992; Contempt of Court Act 1981
Disclosure rules in criminal proceedings.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Admissibility of evidence relating to complainant's sexual history.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
The Crown's failure to disclose the body map until mid-trial materially prejudiced the defense. The lack of opportunity to investigate the map, seek medical opinion on the injuries, and appropriately warn the jury about reliance on the belated evidence undermined a fair trial.
Retrial ordered.
The significant prejudice caused by the Crown's disclosure failures necessitates a retrial to ensure a fair hearing.