Key Facts
- •Richard Asubonteng was convicted on 10 counts of sexual offences against a child (C1) on 19 April 2021.
- •Offences included assault by penetration, sexual assault, causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, and sexual activity with a child.
- •The abuse spanned four years (2016-2019), starting with kissing and escalating in severity.
- •Prosecution relied on C1's ABE interview, evidence from her mother, cousin, and friend, a photograph, and recordings of phone conversations.
- •Asubonteng denied the allegations.
- •Asubonteng applied for an extension of time (455 days) to appeal his conviction, citing difficulties with the English language as the reason for the delay.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to protect the identity of the child victim.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Rules regarding change of judge between cross-examination recording and trial are outlined in Criminal Practice Direction V, Rule 18E.63.
Criminal Practice Direction V, Rule 18E.63
Admissibility of bad character evidence requires specific conditions to be met.
Common law and statute (implied)
Outcomes
Asubonteng's application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed.
The court found the explanation for the delay (English language difficulties) insufficient to justify the 18-month delay. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the grounds of appeal.
The court rejected the ground of appeal relating to the change of judge.
The procedure is standard practice and doesn't affect the safety of the conviction.
The court upheld the judge's refusal to admit evidence of C1's bad character (shoplifting).
The judge correctly determined that the conditions for admissibility were not met.
The court found the admission of the photograph admissible.
The photograph was introduced fairly and dealt with appropriately by the judge.
The court rejected the claim that the barrister prevented Asubonteng from calling witnesses.
The applicant received reasonable legal advice and failed to provide evidence that the witnesses could have materially assisted his case.
The court found no merit in the criticisms of the judge's summing up.
The criticisms were based on the defence's rejected version of events.
The court rejected the claim of unfair trial and breach of Article 6 rights.
This ground was merely a restatement of previously rejected arguments.