Midgley v R
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- Lord Justice Gross
- Mr Justice Simon
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The applicant was convicted of indecent assault based on historical sexual abuse allegations. Fresh evidence from Richard Lloyd was presented on appeal but failed to overturn the conviction. However, the sentence was reduced from 7 to 5 years considering the harm, culpability, and mitigating factors.
Judgment
Mr Justice Simon:
Introduction
On 24 May 2013 at Lewes Crown Court the Applicant was convicted (before HHJ Brown and a Jury) of two counts of indecent assault, contrary to s.14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (counts 1 and 2), and was acquitted of a further charge of indecency with a child (count 3). He was sentenced on count 1 to a term of 7 years, and on count 2 to a term of 3 years imprisonment, to be served concurrently. The total sentence was therefore one of 7 years imprisonment. In addition, various ancillary orders were made that are not the subject of any complaint on this appeal.
His applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and to rely on fresh evidence in relation to the former, were referred to the Full Court by the Single Judge who also granted a representation order. We grant leave.
The background
The charges related to allegations of historic sexual abuse of the Appellant’s step-daughter (whom we will refer to as ‘N’) between January and March 2000. N was 5 or 6 years old at the time, and was 19 by the time of the trial.
In 2000 N’s mother (whom we will refer to as ‘T’) was in a relationship with the Appellant; and the Appellant would (from time-to-time) look after N and her two younger siblings when their mother attended a course of studies on Thursday evenings.
The Prosecution case was that on 3 or 4 occasions while N was alone in the Appellant’s care he sexually abused her by digitally penetrating her vagina (count 1) and by placing her hand on his penis and forcing her to masturbate him (count 2).
Importantly for present purposes the Prosecution case was that the offences took place in the Appellant’s car repair workshop, where a man named ‘Richard’ also worked. It is common ground that this was a man known as Richard Lloyd or Richard Wilmot.
The offences came to light in 2000, when T saw N putting her finger into the vagina of her 2 year-old younger sister in the bath. T said that when she asked N what she was doing, N had told her, ‘this is what Daddy Neil does to me.’ ‘Daddy Neil’ was the name which her children called the Appellant. The Prosecution relied on this as evidence of recent complaint.
The allegations were investigated by the police at the time and N was interviewed on video on 30 March 2000. There were a number of difficulties with what N said in this interview, which were the subject of cross-examination in the trial in May 2013.
The Appellant was interviewed and denied tha