Evidence: Cross-Examination of Complainants in Sexual Cases
| Author | Laura McGowan |
| Published date | 01 August 2006 |
| Date | 01 August 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.70.4.289 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
do not arise in respect of evidence obtained through private surveillance
where the police had no knowledge that it had been taking place. The
critical issue in the present case, decided as it was in the context of the
RIPA provisions, was the nature of the relationship between the police
and the appellant’s neighbour and the court’s judgment left considerable
scope for future analysis in this respect.
Andrew Roberts
Evidence: Cross-examination of Complainants in
Sexual Cases
R vF[2005] EWCA Crim 493, [2005] 2 Cr App R 13
The defendant was tried on three specimen counts of rape and two
specimen counts of gross indecency against the complainant. It was
alleged that the defendant repeatedly abused the complainant when she
was a child between the ages of about 7 and 16 years old. It was common
ground, however, that there was an adult sexual relationship between
the defendant and the complainant for about six years. It was the
defendant’s case that the complainant was happy in this relationship
and that the allegation of childhood abuse was in revenge for him
breaking up the relationship. The complainant said that the adult rela-
tionship was one of submission and was a natural consequence of the
childhood abuse and of being groomed.
The defendant applied to have evidence of photographs and two
videotapes adduced to show that the complainant was happy in the
adult relationship and that it was not one of submission. The photo-
graphs and videotapes were particularly intimate: some showed the
complainant, in effect, stripping for the defendant and some were
pornographic, showing, among other things, the complainant mas-
turbating with an accompanying soundtrack in which her voice can be
heard suggesting in coarse language how much she would prefer to be
having intercourse with the defendant.
The trial judge ruled that under s. 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal
Evidence Act 1999 the fact of the adult relationship could be adduced
before the jury but he refused to allow the evidence to be adduced or
questions asked of the complainant about the photographs or the video-
tapes. The trial judge recorded the defendant’s case that the complainant
made the videotapes voluntarily, but he concluded that they could not
advance the defendant’s case and could not be used on the issue of
credibility. The defendant was convicted 10:2 on all the specimen counts
and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. He appealed.
H
ELD
,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND ORDERING A RETRIAL
,the trial
judge’s ruling proceeded on the basis that the fact of the adult relation-
ship should properly be disclosed to the jury and that this did not
contravene s. 41 of the 1999 Act. However, the ruling in relation to the
photographs and the videotapes produced a disturbing and artificial
Evidence: Cross-examination of Complainants in Sexual Cases
289
To continue reading
Request your trial