[2024] UKUT 440 (AAC)

In his closing submissions, both written and oral, Mr Serr made several points which he submitted cast some doubt on the Appellant’s credibility. Firstly, he said that the evidence of NR was clear, cogent and has the ring of truth to it. He said that she was told to keep the relationship a secret, that he pressured her for sex and sexual favours and groomed her.

Secondly, he said that there was no obvious reason for NR to lie. She has nothing to gain by making her complaint and putting herself through the trauma of a criminal trial. Further, he noted that many aspects of NR’s evidence are admitted by JC. It is unclear why she would tell the truth about them having sex but lie, for example, about the oral sex on the previous occasions.

Next, Mr Serr said that NR was clear that they met both in her school and at the centre prior to her confirmation. He submitted that this would have inevitably indicated to JC NR’s age. This was corroborated by Priest DH and her friend CF who was on the confirmation residential with her (p41-42). JC’s version of how they met in contrast is vague and improbable - he asserts she rang him out the blue at the centre (p115).

Mr Serr next submitted that the other evidence would have inevitably led to JC realising NR was not an adult. For example, she could not drive; she lived with her father; she was only 15 ½ and she had clearly not had sex before when they had intercourse at her father’s house. In addition, he submitted that JC knew NR’s father and attended her church although this is denied by JC (p115).

Mr Serr continued that aspects of NR’s account are corroborated by her sister KLJ, particularly the discovery of the condom (p45) and by NR’s mother’s clear evidence that when she confronted him and told him that NR was 15 he did not express any surprise. The fact of the confrontation is not disputed by anybody. In addition, the letter purportedly from NR dated June 1998 actually supports NR’s account. It is not unfamiliar for a young child such as NR to be in thrall to their abusers as she clearly was. The letter displays classic evidence of grooming and manipulation says Mr Serr.

Mr Serr says that at the Oral Permission Hearing (which he attended), JC contended that NR said he was a circumcised and that others had regarded her as a slut and this was contained in some documentation (p230). He says that the former point is said to undermine the allegation about oral sex. It is unclear why the latter point is of any relevance. In any event the ABE does not support this. She was unsure of whether he was circumcised. The reference to slut is at p280 and appears to be in relation to comments made by friends who found out about the “relationship” and was essentially juvenile bullying.

In relation to the criminal proceedings, Mr Serr submitted that there is a statement at pp 49 to 50 in which NR explains her reasons for no longer wishing to support a prosecution. This was not because the rapes did not occur. The CPS were of the view the public interest test was satisfied. Nothing can be inferred from the fact that the prosecution ultimately did not continue against NR. The age of the offence (being 1998) meant that the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 had a 12-month time limit and a 2 year maximum sentence (by virtue of s6 Sexual Offences Act 1956) and could not be charged. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 subsequently removed the ability of Defendants to argue that a child under 16 consented. In this case the Prosecution charged JC with indecent assault which was not appropriate on the facts, possibly because it had no other offence it could charge likely to secure a conviction (rape having no limitation but likely to be met with a defence of consent).