Mr BA

Mr BA was convicted in July 1999 of indecent assault and indecency with a child. Mr BA received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment.

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

At trial, Mr BA’s defence had argued that the passage of time (10 to 12 years) since the alleged offences had resulted in severe prejudice such that it was not possible for Mr BA to receive a fair trial. This was rejected by the trial judge.

Following review, the CCRC concluded that the judge’s summing up did not adequately deal with the inherent difficulties caused to the defence case by the delay.

The Court of Appeal had consistently recognised the need for trial judges to give directions to juries about the potential prejudice caused to defendants from delays of this kind.

At Mr BA’s trial , the prosecution drew attention to the fact that Mr BA was unable to provide any detailed recollection of any of the complainants and accused him of being deliberately evasive and vague.

In these circumstances, the CCRC took the view that there was a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would conclude that the trial judge should have given the jury a “delay direction” and that his failure to do so adequately impacted on the safety of Mr BA’s conviction.

In addition, the CCRC obtained new evidence which cast doubt upon the reliability of the evidence of complainants and witnesses at trial.

This included previous allegations of rape which had not been disclosed.

The CCRC also found discrepancies between the evidence of a complainant at trial and in her subsequent application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

The CCRC concluded these discrepancies were relevant to the complainant’s credibility.

The CCRC referred the conviction in December 2004.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in June 2006.