[2024] UKUT 441 (AAC)

The appellant denies both the alleged offences. The first and most serious set of allegations in the Final Decision Letter of the DBS are set out above. The appellant says the allegations never happened, he did not know the complainant before the allegations, he never met the complainant and never went to her house. The appellant says he complied with all police requests including providing the police with his phone the first time he was approached by them, and the DNA samples were inconclusive. He says he was picked out in the line up as the girl had a picture of him from social media which she had already provided to the police. The appellant says there was no evidence of contact between them on social media before the allegations.

The DBS raised evidence of screen shots of conversations between the complainant and the appellant. The appellant says these were not dated the conversation did not flow and he did not have these conversations. The actual screen shots were not part of the written evidence before the Tribunal and we have not seen them, nor have the DBS to our knowledge. They were referred to in the interviews with the police but were not set out. The appellant was going to have an expert look at the screen shots to show that they were manipulated but the case was discontinued as the complainant withdrew support for it for the third and final time.

The allegations were at first said to have taken place on 23 July 2018, and then in the interview of the appellant on 21 July and then 27 July 2018 the last change being just before the trial. In the bundle a document from the appellants mother said that she had timed and dated conversations between her and the appellant on 23 July 2018 which would have provided an alibi. These were text conversations about the dog being unwell and needing to go to the vet. The appellant said he was at home looking after the dog when these texts were sent. On 27 July 2018 he was with his brother, his brother’s partner and his sister as his sister was back from holiday so they were spending the day together. This is at para 28 of his statement which the Tribunal received this morning.

The appellant says he was in a relationship with another girl and a male friend of his obtained his password to his social media account. This friend sent messages pretending to be the appellant to this girlfriend (not the complainant) and her family were not happy with the content of the messages. He was not sure whether there was a link between the conversations with this girl and the complainant, but this was evidence that someone else had access to his social media account.

The appellant says the second allegation about his girlfriend’s sister is wrong and was not sexual. He accepts that he told her he had fancied her before he met her sister and did not mean he fancied her at the time. He said that she may have interpreted this wrongly as she was aware of the previous allegations through her sister and the girl in this complaint and the father of his then girlfriend did not like him.