R vs Caswell

This case involved an appeal by the appellant, Caswell, against his conviction for sexual offences involving a minor, referred to as X. The appeal raised issues regarding the admissibility of evidence and the adequacy of judicial directions given to the jury during the trial.

TLDR:

• Caswell was convicted of sexual offences against a minor, X.
• The appeal questioned the admissibility of certain evidence and the directions given by the trial judge.
• The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial miscarriage of justice.

The appellant, Caswell, was convicted of sexual offences against a minor, X. The prosecution's case was that the offences occurred in X's bedroom, where she lived with her mother and the appellant. On one occasion, Caswell allegedly inserted his finger into X's vagina under the pretext of kissing her goodnight. On another occasion, he allegedly had sexual intercourse with her while she was asleep.

The defence argued that the sexual assaults never happened and suggested that X had fabricated the allegations, pointing to a previous complaint made by X in 2017, which was not pursued to trial. The defence contended that the jury should not rely on X's evidence due to these inconsistencies.

Ground 1 of the appeal concerned the judge's directions regarding the previous complaint made by X in 2017. The defence argued that the jury should have been directed to consider this as evidence of X's potential to make false complaints. The Court of Appeal found that while the judge's directions could have been more detailed, they were adequate in the context of the trial.

Ground 2 involved the prosecution's closing speech, where it was argued that prosecuting counsel speculated beyond permissible comment. The Court of Appeal found that any issues with the closing speech were minor and did not affect the jury's verdict.

Ground 3 related to the admission of evidence from Santara Peters, which was accepted by both parties as inadmissible under the relevant sections of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Court of Appeal agreed that this evidence should not have been admitted but found that it did not cause a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Ground 4 concerned evidence from Shaun Peters, which the defence argued was bad character evidence. The Court of Appeal found that the evidence was relevant to the facts of the case and its admission was justified.

Ground 5 addressed the manner in which the evidence of AB, X's mother, was adduced. The Court of Appeal agreed that the evidence should not have been led in the manner it was but found that the content of the evidence was likely to have been presented to the jury regardless.

Despite identifying several procedural errors, the Court of Appeal concluded that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. The jury had a clear understanding of the issues and the evidence, and their verdict was based on a thorough consideration of the facts.