Taylor v The Queen
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and possession of extreme pornographic images. The appeals against his conviction and sentence were dismissed. The court ruled that evidence of alleged lies by the complainant about her past sexual conduct was correctly excluded, the judge summed up the case accurately, and the sentence imposed was proper.
Judgment
Sir Brian Leveson P:
On 25 January 2013, in the Crown Court at Wood Green before His Honour Judge Carr and a jury, the appellant was convicted (by a majority of 10:2) of two counts of sexual assault; he was acquitted of two further counts of sexual assault and rape. On 5 February 2013 (before the same Court), he pleaded guilty to possession of extreme pornographic images and on 8 March was sentenced to 12 months and 3 years imprisonment respectively for the two counts of sexual assault (to run concurrently) and a consecutive term of 4 months for the possession offence making 3 years 4 months imprisonment in all. Appropriate ancillary orders were made. With leave of the single judge, he appealed against conviction in relation to the first two offences and sentence. Having heard the appeals, we dismissed both: we now provide our reasons.
The facts can be summarised comparatively shortly. The appellant is the uncle of the complainant C being married to her aunt. When C was aged 12 years, during a sleepover, she made an allegation to her friend, V, that the appellant had sexually abused her when she had been aged 8 or 9 years. V told a mutual friend, CF, whereupon the two friends reported the allegation to their school. On 2 March 2012, C gave a full ABE interview to police setting out the allegations.
In short, the prosecution alleged that the appellant sexually assaulted the complainant when she was aged 8 or 9 years, whilst he was in her bedroom helping her to decorate it, by placing his hand on her thigh and keeping it there (Count 1 of which he was convicted). C did not make a complaint at that stage and it was alleged that, when she was sleeping at her aunt’s house, the appellant would try to remove her underwear, while she was sleeping and awake, including when she was sleeping between her aunt and the appellant (Counts 2 and 3 of which he was acquitted). On one occasion, however, at night, when C was sleeping alone, he then went to her bed, undressed them both and vaginally raped her (Count 4). The indictment included an alternative of sexual assault in respect of this complaint (Count 5) and in the event, the appellant was acquitted of rape but convicted of sexual assault.
In addition to C’s evidence, the prosecution relied on the obvious distress she was in when the allegations were made and/or repeated (as they were to her mother, the school and the police), including in evidence, to show evidence of recent complaint and in support of