Page 440 - Magistrates Conference 2019

Page 32

141. In the circumstances, the appellant received a modified good character direction which, in our view, was
generous to him. It referred to the previous offences but stressed their age. In addition, the judge made it plain that he
had not been convicted of any sexual offences, and that the jury were not to convict the appellant just because he had a
criminal record. The direction finished with the proper emphasis on the need for the Crown to prove its case.

142. Further and in any event, we consider that the case against the appellant was extremely strong. We are in no
doubt that even a more positive direction on propensity would have had no consequence at all at the trial. We have
concluded that the appellant's conviction is entirely safe. Johnstone's appeal against conviction is therefore dismissed.

HUNTER

(a) Facts

143. The appellant is now 38. The complainant, C, who was born on 7 March 1995 lived with the appellant, his wife
and their three other children in Manchester. On 22 March 2011, one of C's friends noticed that she appeared to be very
upset and asked what the matter was. C told her that the appellant had been sexually abusing her for the past year. Her
friend told her to speak to a teacher, which she did. The police were contacted and C was interviewed. In her ABE
interview, C described frequent sexual abuse from the age of 14 which included rubbing her vagina with his fingers,
touching her breast while he masturbated to ejaculation, attempted vaginal intercourse and forcing her to give him oral
sex. Shortly before her 16 th birthday, C claimed that the appellant inserted his penis in her vagina and then removed it
and told her to suck it. He licked her vagina and again masturbated himself to ejaculation. The appellant was arrested
on 23 March 2011. When interviewed he denied the offences. He said that he thought he had a good relationship with C
and did not know why she was making up the allegations. He speculated that she might be attention seeking, or seeking
to get him out of the family home because he might be considered too controlling.

144. The appellant was tried by HHJ Stockdale QC and a jury at Manchester Crown Court in January 2012. The
appellant gave evidence that none of the allegations were true, and that all had been fabricated. He said that he suffered
from diabetes, weight problems and physical conditions affecting his mobility and depression.

145. At the time of the trial the appellant had one previous conviction for obtaining property by deception on 20
September 2000, for which he received a Community Service Order. This conviction was admitted into evidence by
agreement.

146. During the discussion prior to the summing-up, the judge said that he proposed "to give a standard direction" on
character. He went on to say:

"It seems to me that the previous conviction of the defendant was for a wholly unrelated matter some time ago...and,
subject to that, which is a matter of record, his character is, of course, good, and I will direct the jury accordingly."

147. The judge's direction to the jury was in these terms: