Mr AP

Mr AP was convicted in September 2001 of rape and received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment.

On the day of the alleged offence, the complainant made a statement to police in which she said that she had been raped by both Mr AP and his co-defendant, Mr AO.

The following day the complainant made another statement that she had been raped by MR AO and held down by Mr AP. This was consistent with her trial evidence.

At trial, the jury were made aware of the earlier inconsistent statement but were invited to consider evidence that the complainant may have been in a state of shock and distress when she made it.

Following review, the CCRC concluded that the trial judge had fallen short of giving a full and proper direction to the jury regarding the weight that should be attached to evidence of distress, particularly where it is “part and parcel” of the complaint.

In addition, the CCRC obtained a claim submitted by the complainant to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) that referenced a rape by two men. This was inconsistent with the trial evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction in November 2004.