Key Facts
- •Michael McAfferty, aged 74, convicted of six sexual offences at Derby Crown Court on 30 May 2022.
- •Offences involved indecent assault and making indecent photographs of a child (C1).
- •Acquitted on several other charges including rape.
- •Appeal against conviction refused by a single judge, then renewed.
- •Allegations span 1992-2005, involving three complainants (C1, C2, C3). C1 and C2 are sisters.
- •Appeal based on four grounds: inadmissible hearsay evidence, logically inconsistent verdicts, erroneous jury directions on cross-admissibility, and cumulative effect of errors.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: prohibits publication of information identifying victims of sexual offences unless waived or lifted under section 3.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Standard of proof in criminal cases: the jury must be sure of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.
Common law
Jury directions: Judge's instructions to the jury must be accurate and clear to ensure a fair trial.
Common law
Logical inconsistency of verdicts: While not always grounds for appeal, highly inconsistent verdicts may suggest an unsafe conviction.
Common law
Cross-admissibility of evidence: Evidence relating to one count can be considered in relation to other counts if it supports the overall prosecution case, subject to careful judicial direction.
Common law
Good character direction: A direction to the jury about a defendant's good character should be given where appropriate.
Common law
Outcomes
Appeal refused.
The court found no individual ground of appeal sufficient to render the convictions unsafe, and the cumulative effect of the alleged errors did not render the convictions unsafe either.
Inadmissible hearsay evidence deemed adequately addressed by judge's directions.
The judge gave clear instructions to the jury to ignore the inadmissible evidence. The immediate reaction of counsel did not indicate the need for a jury discharge.
Verdicts deemed not logically inconsistent.
The court found alternative explanations for the jury's verdicts, suggesting a careful consideration of evidence and adherence to the standard of proof. Contradictions in evidence were noted.
Jury direction on cross-admissibility deemed appropriate.
The judge's direction explicitly cautioned the jury to consider the independence of the complaints and warned against influence.