R v Ethan Allon
[2023] EWCA Crim 204
Robin Edward Hoare v R
27 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1242
Court of Appeal
A man was wrongly convicted of online sex offenses because the judge didn't reveal the real age of the person the man was chatting with online. The judge should have said if the pictures used were real or fake. The conviction was overturned, and there will be a new trial.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against convictions for attempted sexual communication with a child (count 1) and attempting to incite a child to engage in sexual activity (count 2).
- •Appellant's defense: He believed he was communicating with an adult pretending to be 14 as part of a role-playing fantasy.
- •Evidence: Social media correspondence with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl.
- •Images sent by the undercover officer were central to the trial.
- •Defense requested disclosure of the true age of the person in the images.
- •Judge refused disclosure after a Public Interest Immunity (PII) hearing.
- •Appellant was convicted.
Legal Principles
Public Interest Immunity (PII)
R v H & C [2004] 2 AC 134
Sexual Offences Act 2003, sections 10 and 15A
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Test for disclosure of evidence in criminal trials; balance between fairness to the defendant and public interest.
Case law and Criminal Procedure Rules
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed.
The court found that the appellant was unfairly prejudiced by the refusal to disclose the true age of the person depicted in the images. The jury may have incorrectly assumed the images were true likenesses of a real underage girl.
Retrial ordered.
The interests of justice required a retrial.
Publication of the unredacted judgment postponed until after the retrial.
To protect the administration of justice in the retrial.