Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal against convictions for rape and indecent assault, affirming the trial judge's decision not to sever the 12-count indictment involving four complainants, on the grounds that: the appellant's primary argument for severance, based on potential collusion or contamination due to electronic communications between the complainants, was insufficient to warrant separate trials; the appellant's late attempt to introduce a new ground of appeal, suggesting the two rape counts should have been tried separately from the indecent assault counts, had not been raised at trial and did not meet the threshold of fundamental injustice; and the trial judge did not err in refusing to withdraw the case from the jury based on the PO’C application, as the issues raised could be addressed through jury instructions.
Court of Appeal - sexual assault - rape - indecent assault - severance of indictment - collusion - contamination - electronic communications - PO’C application - trial judge's discretion - pattern of offending - jury instructions - People (DPP) v Limen - People (DPP) v. PP - Rule 3 of the indictment rules - s.6(3) of the 1924 Act - People (DPP) v Cronin - admissibility - probative value - prejudice, credibility - reliability.