Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against a conviction for multiple sexual offences against the appellant's nieces and nephew, on the grounds that: (a) this is case with many similarities, involving three young children of similar ages, and inter-related; (b) the precursor to some incidents involved the use of various games in order to lure the children into situations of abuse, and it cannot be said that sexual activity was not of a similar nature; (c) the fact that some conduct is more egregious than other conduct will not in and of itself require severance of an indictment; (d) there is significant probative value to be derived from the inherent unlikelihood of three people making similar false accusations; (e) the impugned evidence of NM was prejudicial, but the key question was whether the probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect; and (f) the complainant could not have known of incidents regard NM but for having been told by the appellant, and therefore NM’s evidence was of significance to the credibility of the complainant.
Criminal Law – appeal against conviction – 14 counts of sexual assault – 8 counts of rape – two of appellant’s nieces and his nephew – four separate locations when complainants were young children – inappropriate touching – compelling complainant to masturbate him – appeal concerns the refusal to sever the indictment and decision to permit the prosecution to adduce evidence from a witness, NM – whether the judge erred in refusing to accede to applications to sever the indictment and for separate trials – whether the judge erred in allowing evidence of NM to go before the jury in circumstances where its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect – case with many similarities, three young children of similar ages and inter-related – precursor to some incidents involved the use of various games in order to lure the children into situations of abuse – it cannot be said that sexual activity was not of a similar nature – fact that some conduct is more egregious than other conduct will not in and of itself require severance of an indictment – significant probative value to be derived from the inherent unlikelihood of three people making similar false accusations – impugned evidence of NM was prejudicial but key question was whether the probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect – complainant could not have know of incidents regard NM but for having been told by the appellant – therefore NM’s evidence was of significance to the credibility of the complainant – appeal dismissed.