Mr AR

Mr AR was convicted in March 1999 of rape and indecent assault. Mr AR received a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment.

The CCRC received an application for review of the conviction in April 2000.

The case concerned historic sexual offences.

During review, the CCRC considered whether there was a real possibility the court would find Mr AR’s conviction unsafe by reason of the lapse of time between the alleged incidents and the trial, and the attendant difficulties for Mr AR in defending himself against the allegations.

At trial, there had been inconsistencies in the accounts of the complainants.

The CCRC considered that the lapse of time between 1977 (when the offences were alleged to have taken place) and the trial in 1999 was prejudicial to the defence because it provided the basis for a conclusion by the jury that the inconsistencies could be explained by a lack of recollection.

In addition, the trial judge directed the jury in relation to the lapse of time in a way that did not, in the CCRC’s view, adequately articulate how, in the specific circumstances of this case, delay had the potential to impact on the formulation of the defence.

There had also been no application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process, which the CCRC considered could properly have been made.

The CCRC referred the conviction in October 2004.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction in June 2005.