This item first appeared on the FACT website on the 19th January 2005
The following case may be of interest to F.A.C.T. members
Case No: 0200128 B1 Date: 18/01/2005
Heading: Criminal Law, Evidence
Sub-heading: Appeal against conviction, Indecent assault on male, Buggery, Unavailability of witnesses
Extract: An appeal by a convict (B) against the decision of Peter Jacobs HHJ sitting in the Crown Court at Cardiff, which had convicted him on two counts of indecent assault and three counts of buggery. The complainants were three boys, who had been residents in a remand home where B had been employed as a teacher. They alleged that B had committed the offences against them during their stay at the home. In the lower court, most of the documents that had been relied on were missing and most of the potential witnesses were either dead or unavailable, which resulted in a considerable delay in the trial proceedings. The lower court had found B guilty of the alleged offences and had convicted him. B appealed. He submitted that his conviction was unsafe given the absence of crucial documents and witnesses. The court was required to determine whether there was any merit in his submissions.
Relevant documents, which would have shown that B had been on duty on the day the offence against the first complainant had been committed, were missing. In the absence of such crucial evidence, B's conviction on one count of buggery, alleged by the first complainant, was unsafe. However, his convictions on the remaining counts of buggery and indecent assault were safe. In those cases, even if the relevant documents and the witnesses had been available, it was unlikely that B would have relied on them or even called for them in his evidence. Therefore, the absence of those documents or potential witnesses did not make his conviction unsafe on the remaining counts.
Appeal partly allowed; partly dismissed.
Outcome: Appeal Against Conviction Dismissed