Xie v The Crown
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 raping a 15-year-old girl, TL, in 2008. The CCRC later referred the conviction back to the court due to new medical evidence. The case revolved around the reliability and accuracy of the trial's medical evidence. TL's account included being invited to the appellant's hotel room, where she was allegedly raped. The appellant denied the allegations, suggesting the account was fabricated. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the evidence presented by Dr. Aziz was not materially inaccurate or misleading.
Judgment
Sir Brian Leveson P :
On 29 October 2008, in the Crown Court at Southwark before His Honour Judge Testar and a jury, the appellant, then about 45 years of age, was convicted of the rape of TL, a school girl who was then 15 years old. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment less time spent on remand. Following conviction, an unsuccessful appeal was mounted to this court: see [2010] EWCA Crim 912 . Thereafter, the conviction was referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) who, based upon new medical evidence; which is said to raise concerns about the adequacy of the medical evidence at trial, referred the conviction back to this court on the basis of its conclusion that a further appeal stands a real prospect of success.
In the light of the circumstances, it is necessary to examine the facts in some detail. TL and the appellant are both Chinese nationals. The appellant was introduced to her and her family through a mutual friend and agreed to assist in arranging a study placement for her in the UK. He obtained a visa for her and put her in contact with two guardians. On 12 January 2008, TL arrived in the UK to commence full time education at a boarding school in the south of England.
The school half-term holiday commenced on 8 February and TL and her friend HZ stayed with host families. On 11 February 2008, the appellant made contact with TL for the first time; he invited her to attend a special programme for overseas students in Westminster being held on the following day. Both girls were taken to London by their hosts and spent a day sightseeing and attending the event. TL spoke only briefly with the appellant because he was busy. This was their first meeting.
The next day, 13 February, the appellant again phoned TL and invited her to London so that he could speak with her. She arrived in China Town at 3.30 pm and waited outside the Royal Dragon restaurant as agreed. He telephoned her about forty minutes later and several times thereafter, apologising that he had been delayed. He eventually arrived at 7.40 pm and they ate a meal in the restaurant. What follows is TL’s account in evidence.
During the meal the appellant said that he had bought some clothing which he went to collect, returning twenty minutes later with a “DKNY” carrier bag. He then asked her to come with him so they could discuss her education. They left the restaurant at 8.20 pm. TL believed that they would talk in an office but the appellant took her to his b