ISSUE 5 2008 - Sweet & Maxwell

394 Case & Comment [2008]
punishment which he would not otherwise have faced had he been able to rely on the
privilege.
[A.J.R.]
Rape
Fresh evidence—evidence of complainant making numerous false complaints—effect on
credibility—whether conviction unsafe
Admissibility; Credibility; Cross-examination; False statements; Fresh
evidence; Rape; Victims
R. v C
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Sir Igor Judge P., Pitchford J. and Sir
Richard Curtis: October 16, 2007; [2007] EWCA Crim 2551.
The complainants, K and L, were sisters. They made allegations against the
defendant of rape and indecent assault. At the defendant’s trial, K was crossexamined
about a number of false allegations, including allegations of sexual
offences, which she had made against other people. The allegations made by
L were very similar. In cross-examination, L confirmed that she had wanted to
stay with her sister and that she had been aware that K wanted to leave their
father’s house. She denied that K had told her what she should say when she
was interviewed or that she and K had made up the allegations so that they
could leave home together. The essence of the defendant’s defence was that
the evidence given against him represented a complete fabrication. In 2000, the
defendant was convicted of two counts of rape and indecent assault in respect of
both complainants. In 2002, the Criminal Cases Review Commission was invited
to consider the safety of the convictions on the basis that K had made a false
allegation of rape against her brother in 2001. At that stage, there was no evidence
to suggest that the allegation was false. Accordingly, the Commission decided that
there was no basis upon which to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. However,
in 2006, the defendant again invited the Commission to conduct a review of
his conviction on the basis that K had been cautioned for wasting police time
following allegations of sexual abuse that she had made against her stepfather. An
investigation undertaken by the Commission demonstrated that K had a proved
tendency to make false allegations that she was a victim of sexual crime. Such
allegations included reports that she had been raped by her brother, a customer at
her place of work, a boyfriend and her stepfather. The Commission referred the
defendant’s case to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to s.9 of the Criminal Appeal
Act 1995. Even after the defendant’s convictions were referred, K made a false
allegation of rape against a former boyfriend.
Held, allowing the appeal, a moment’s glance at the facts would demonstrate
that the new material would severely undermine any confidence that any jury could
have had in K’s evidence; the credibility of K was damaged beyond repair. The
defendant’s conviction for rape and indecent assault on K were flawed. They had
to be quashed. Moreover, the fresh evidence would have had a direct impact not
only on the jury’s judgment of the allegation made by K, but also those made
by L, simply because of their close relationship and the desire she had expressed
© SWEET &MAXWELL