R v Ben Mason
[2023] EWCA Crim 777
R v Lee Hammill
1 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 519
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually abusing a child. He appealed, claiming the judge was unfair and didn't help his lawyer enough. The appeal court said the trial wasn't unfair enough to overturn the conviction, even though there were some mistakes.
Key Facts
- •Lee Hammill (aged 31) convicted of multiple sexual offences against a child (AB) aged 11-14.
- •Offences included rape, assault by penetration, and sexual activity with a child.
- •Sentence: 12 years (11 years custodial, 1-year licence).
- •Applicant appealed conviction on four grounds.
- •Grounds 1 & 2: Judge's summing-up was pro-prosecution and diffuse.
- •Ground 3: Judge's handling of the intermediary for the autistic applicant.
- •Ground 4: Prosecution's cross-examination of its own witnesses (AB's mother).
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Restrictions on publishing information that identifies victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Summation must be balanced; a fundamentally imbalanced summing-up cannot be corrected by simply telling the jury that assessment of evidence is their role.
R v Mears [1993] 1 WLR 818
Importance of intermediaries in assisting vulnerable witnesses and proper procedures for their use.
Advocate's Toolkit (referenced, not directly quoted)
Outcomes
Leave to appeal refused.
Court found no grounds to suggest the conviction was unsafe. While some procedural errors were noted (e.g., timing of ground rules hearing, some phrasing in the summation), these were not considered significant enough to affect the safety of the conviction. The jury had sufficient evidence to reach their verdict.