R v Michael McCafferty: Appeals Court Upholds Convictions Despite Challenges to Inadmissible Evidence and Jury Verdict Consistency

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1650
Judgment on

Introduction

In R v Michael McCafferty [2023] EWCA Crim 1650, the Court of Appeal heard a renewed application for leave to appeal against a conviction for various sexual offences. Michael McCafferty, the applicant, challenged his conviction on the grounds of inadmissible hearsay bad character evidence, logical inconsistency in jury’s verdicts, unsatisfactory compromise instead of due analysis of evidence, incorrect directions given by the trial judge regarding cross-admissibility, and the cumulative impact of all individual grounds.

Key Facts

McCafferty was convicted in the Crown Court at Derby for six sexual offences involving three complainants, identified as C1, C2, and C3, over the period of 1992 to 2005. Several accusations against McCafferty pertained to indecent assault and the making of indecent photographs of a child. McCafferty’s defence was a flat denial of the allegations. He appealed the Crown Court’s decision after refusal by the single judge.

Several legal principles are at the core of the appeal in this case:

  1. Treatment of Inadmissible Evidence: This principle concerns the inadvertent introduction of hearsay bad character evidence regarding the defendant and the judge’s subsequent instructions to the jury to disregard said evidence.

  2. Assessment of Jury Verdicts: The appellant’s submission highlighted purported logical inconsistencies of the jury’s verdicts between convicted and acquitted counts, challenging whether the jury’s conclusion was based on a careful analysis of the evidence.

  3. Cross-Admissibility: The appellant contested that cross-admissibility instructions allowed the jury to consider evidence from one count to support another. The focus was whether such instructions were appropriate given the relationship between the complainants and potential influence.

  4. Cumulative Effect: The principle here is whether collectively, these grounds could render the conviction unsafe despite each ground individually being inadequate.

  5. Good Character Direction: The trial judge adhered to this standard by providing a good character direction, which was considered by the Court of Appeal in assessing the impact of inadmissible evidence on the verdict.

Outcomes

The Court found the following outcomes regarding each ground of appeal:

  1. The court decided the trial judge’s instructions effectively mitigated the inclusion of inadmissible hearsay evidence, and it did not impact the trial’s fairness or the convictions’ safety.

  2. The court rejected the logical inconsistency argument, indicating that differences in the jury’s verdicts reflected their careful consideration and adherence to the burden of proof and the requirement to consider each count separately.

  3. On cross-admissibility, it was determined that the trial judge appropriately instructed the jury only to consider this if the complaints were independent, without influence.

  4. The cumulative impact ground was dismissed, with the court satisfied that legal or procedural errors did not collectively affect the safety of the convictions.

  5. Regarding character evidence, the court found the trial judge appropriately cautioned the jury against considering other people’s opinions about the defendant.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s analysis in R v Michael McCafferty addresses key issues in the adjudication of sexual offence cases, specifically the need for trial fairness, the rationale behind jury verdicts, and the correct application of cross-admissibility principles. The judgment underscores that inadmissible evidence must be handled carefully to avoid prejudicing the jury, but if proper curative instructions are given, the error may not necessarily lead to a conviction being unsafe. The decision also illustrates that the court gives regard to the nuances of jury reasoning and the capacity of robust jury instructions to cure potential trial improprieties. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal concluded that McCafferty’s convictions should remain stand, as there was no legal or procedural error found that would render his convictions unsafe, either individually or collectively.