{"id":811799,"date":"2026-05-02T00:29:05","date_gmt":"2026-05-01T22:29:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-the-crown-2\/"},"modified":"2026-05-02T00:29:05","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T22:29:05","slug":"r-v-the-crown-2","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-the-crown-2\/","title":{"rendered":"R v The Crown"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Lord Justice Simon: 1. We make an order under ss. 45 and 45A of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, that no report may be published which is likely to lead to the child KH being identified. 2. This is an appeal against conviction relating to the Jury\u2019s consideration of transcripts of ABE interviews. The appellant was convicted of a number of sexual offences at Norwich Crown Court on 31 August 2016: count 1, rape of a child under 13; count 2, sexual activity with a child; count 3, a further count of sexual activity with a child; counts 4 and 5, taking indecent images of a child; and count 6, making indecent images of a child. 3. On 7 September 2016, he was sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment in respect of these offences, with various consequential and ancillary orders. 4. The appellant lived with his partner, at an address in Mileham, Norfolk, and was the step-father of her children, one of whom was the complainant, KH (born in February 2000). 5. On 24 April 2014 police went to the family home on a suspicion that indecent images of children had been viewed on a computer there. A Toshiba laptop computer and a Blackberry mobile phone were seized. 6. A subsequent examination revealed that the laptop had been used on many occasions to search for child pornography, and five indecent images of children were found on the device (count 6). The images had been downloaded on 15 November 2013 at a time when the appellant\u2019s partner was at work and her two children were recorded as being at school. 7. Shortly after the appellant was interviewed, the police conducted an interview with KH. 8. In this first interview (conducted in two stages on 28 April 2014), she said that she was responsible for some of the indecent images and internet searches. She said that she had done this as a reaction to previous sexual abuse by her biological father, GB, at a time when she had been around eight. She said that he would make her masturbate him while lying next to her, and would masturbate himself in her presence. She said that the abuse ended when the appellant moved into the family home; and that she had not told anyone about it until she had told her mother and the appellant a few days previously. She also said that she had taken inappropriate images of herself on her mobile phone which had then been confiscated. She denied that anyone had put her up to this account. 9. The Blackberry device was examined after the appellant and KH had been interviewed for the first time, and images of KH were found, including photographs of her dressed in only a bra, knickers, stockings, and a suspender belt (count 4). 10. On 14 May, KH\u2019s mother handed to the police a written list of internet search terms of a sexual nature, which she said she had found at the family home. 11. Subsequently, KH asked to be re-interviewed. In this second interview (on 6 June 2014), she told the police that on two occasions when she was aged about 8\u00bd her biological father had penetrated her anally with his penis whilst she was in bed at night. She said that she had only told the appellant and her mother just a week before. 12. Although they carried out further investigations in the light of this new information, as a result of further items found at the family home the focus of police attention remained on the appellant. These items found included the stockings and integrated knickers and suspender belt which KH could be seen wearing in the count 4 photograph, as well as a vibrator which was also found in KH\u2019s room. The knickers and suspender belt and the stockings were forensically analysed and found to contain semen with DNA matching that of the appellant. The evidence indicated the likelihood that the semen in the gusset of the knickers and the vaginal material also found on them were deposited at the same time, following sexual intercourse, although the possibility that they were deposited at different times could not be excluded. 13. KH\u2019s mother also had handed to the police notes with a sexualised content purportedly written by KH and addressed to the appellant. These included requests for lessons in kissing and an invitation to lick her vagina. A defence handwriting expert was instructed to determine whether the name of \u2018[R's first name]\u2019 had been added to the top of the notes. The expert concluded that there was moderate support for the proposition that the questioned name entries were contemporaneous with the rest of the letter. 14. On 25 June KH\u2019s mother handed to the police six Secure Digital memory cards one of which contained photographs of KH lying naked and semi-naked on a bed at what appeared to be the Chatsworth Hotel, where KH and the appellant had stayed together, as well as images at the family home (count 5). 15. KH was re-interviewed. In this third interview (on 15 July 2014), she retracted substantial parts of her earlier account including the allegations she had made against her natural father. She indicated that she had been attempting to protect the appellant. She said that she had been in a sexual relationship with him since the age of eleven. In January 2013 when she was aged just under thirteen, this had progressed to full sexual intercourse on a regular basis and continued until just before the time of the first police search (counts 1 to 3). 16. A further (fourth) interview was conducted with KH (on 24 July). This was in relation to the investigation into KH\u2019s allegations against her biological father. In the fourth interview, she withdrew the allegations of anal sexual intercourse she had made against GB. She said that the appellant had pushed this thought on her until she believed that it had happened. The appellant had suggested things that she should tell the police regarding her biological father. However, she maintained that the rest of her allegations against GB were true. The recording of this interview was disclosed before KH gave evidence at trial as unused material, since it was not part of the Prosecution case. 17. A fifth interview was conducted with KH (on 31 October 2014) in which she reiterated her allegations against the appellant. 18. In his police interview, the appellant gave an account that was broadly consistent with his evidence at trial, save that he did not mention at this stage that he had masturbated into what he believed to be his partner\u2019s underwear. This being his explanation at trial for the finding of his semen on KH\u2019s underwear. 19. The trial began on 18 August 2016. 20. The Prosecution case on counts 1 to 5 was that the appellant had groomed KH and then had a sexual relationship with her, during which he kissed and performed oral sex on her (count 2) and had vaginal sexual intercourse, both before (count 1) and after (count 3) her thirteenth birthday. The Prosecution alleged that he took indecent photographs of her (counts 4 and 5). It was the Prosecution case that she had initially provided false accounts in interview in order to protect the appellant with whom she had believed she was in love. 21. The Prosecution contended that the truth and accuracy of her later accounts in interview were supported by (1) the DNA evidence of the appellant\u2019s semen on the knickers that KH was wearing in the count 4 photograph; (2) the images of both her and other children found on his electronic devices; (3) the indecent photographs that were taken of KH in the hotel room that they had shared; (4) the contents of notes written to the appellant by KH; (5) a hole found in the door of KH\u2019s bedroom at the family home; and (6) her attendance at the doctors for a pregnancy test in the company of the appellant. Point (5) gave rise to a ground of appeal on which the Single Judge refused leave. The case on count 6 was that the appellant was responsible for downloading the indecent images. 22. The Defence case on counts 1 to 5 was that the appellant had never engaged in any sexual activity with KH, whose account could not be believed. Her allegations were the product of adolescent sexual fantasising. Her mother had the motive (both financial and in order to protect KH\u2019s biological father for financial reasons) to concoct the allegations with KH. There was evidence that the appellant was impotent for at least part of the period covered by the indictment, and the finding of his semen was explained by him masturbating into what he assumed was his partner\u2019s underwear. He did not take the indecent photographs of KH which were most likely taken by her, using a timer facility. His case in relation to count 6 was that he had no knowledge of the indecent images and did not deliberately download them. All three family members had access to the laptop and may have been responsible for the indecent images and searches for indecent material. Medical records showed that he had suffered a heart attack in March 2012 which had resulted in acute anxiety and panic attacks. There were also records showing that in December 2012 he had visited a hypnotherapist with his partner, during which he spoke of his loss of libido. 23. The issue for the Jury in respect of counts 1 to 5 was whether they were sure that KH had given a truthful and accurate account of the appellant engaging in sexual activity with her, including vaginal intercourse, and of having taken indecent photographs of her; and, on count 6, whether they could be sure that the appellant had downloaded the images onto his laptop computer. 24. Before continuing further with the narrative, it is convenient to summarise the way in which the ABE recordings were put before the jury: the two-part first interview (on 28 April) was led by the Defence during the cross-examination of KH; the second interview (on 6 June) was also led by the Defence during the cross-examination of KH; the third interview (on 15 July) was led as part of the Prosecution case, the fourth interview (on 24 July) was led by the Defence during the cross-examination of KH; and the fifth and final interview (on 31 October) was also led as part of the prosecution case. There were transcripts of the 28 April, 6 June, 15 July and 31 October interviews; but these were not made available to the Jury in the course of the evidence. There was no transcript of the 13-minute interview on 24 July. 25. The Judge began his summing-up on 30 August 2016 and no issue arises in relation to this summing-up. Among the issues that he summarised were the contents of the interviews of 28 April, 6 June, 15 July, 24 July and 31 October. The Jury began their deliberations on the afternoon of 30 August, were released at the end of that day and retired again at 10.10 on 31 August. 26. At 11.03, after the Jury had been in retirement for some 3 hours and 15 minutes, they sent a note requesting a copy of the transcripts of KH\u2019s ABE interviews of 24 July and 31 October 2014. It was agreed between the Judge and Counsel that they were not permitted to have these. 27. When the Jury were called back into court to be told this, it emerged that one set of the interview transcripts of 28 April, 6 June and 15 July (although not those of 24 July and 31 October) had been taken from the witness suite to the jury room and left there. 28. As we have already noted, at no point during the evidence had the Jury had access to transcripts and no transcript had ever been made of the 24 July interview. 29. The Jury retired again, and the Judge directed the usher to bring back the transcripts of KH\u2019s interviews. As the Judge observed, \u2018someone has been careless.\u2019 30. Following this discovery, there was a discussion as to what should be done. The Judge indicated that the Jury had \u2018not received anything evidentially which they shouldn\u2019t have received\u2019, by which we understand him to mean that the transcripts did not contain unedited material. In these circumstances, he suggested that the \u2018tactful way through\u2019 was to allow the jury \u2018in the exceptional circumstances\u2019 to have the transcripts of 24 July and 31 October interviews. Ms Donovan said she agreed. However, the Judge said he would only adopt that course with her full agreement and the appellant\u2019s approval. He observed that it was in no one\u2019s interest to have a new trial, which was the alternative. He then rose while Ms Donovan took instructions and Prosecuting Counsel (in the absence of Mr O\u2019Donnell who was trial Counsel) researched the position in Archbold. 31. After half an hour, the Judge returned to Court. Ms Donovan pointed out that, although the transcript of the 31 October interview could be provided to the jury, the interview of 24 July had not been transcribed. The Judge indicated that he would remind the jury of the summary of that interview that he had already given in the course of the summing-up. Mr Donovan then suggested that the interview could be transcribed. The Judge pointed out that this would take time. Counsel for the Prosecution then drew the Judge\u2019s attention to the passage in Archbold at 8-92, under the heading \u2018Transcript for Jury\u2019. Although we will come to the cases of Popescu [2010] EWCA Crim 1230 and Sardar [2012] EWCA Crim 134, there is a reference to Coshall (The Times, 17 February 1995), which suggests that, where a Jury asks for a transcript after retirement, their request should only be allowed with the agreement of both parties, and subject to a reminder being given to the Jury as to the other evidence and as to the proper status of the transcript. 32. Ms Donovan\u2019s submissions focussed on the absence of a transcript for the 24 July interview, and she asked for further time to consider the issue. The Judge refused the request and said she had already had 30 minutes to consider the issue. He indicated that the jury would be given the transcript of the 31 October interview, and adjourned for 5 minutes for Counsel to ensure that the jury were getting the correct pages. 33. When he returned to Court, the Judge asked whether there was anything Ms Donovan wished him to add to the summary he had given in his summing-up of the 24 July interview. Ms Donovan said that she did not think it went into enough detail and, when asked what further detail there should be, told the Judge that she would need to watch the 13-minute video again. She also requested that the Jury be permitted to watch the video again. 34. Following what may be fairly described as a testy response to counsel\u2019s request, the Judge said that he would allow the jury to have the 31 October transcript and they would be reminded of the contents of 24 July interview. He allowed Ms Donovan time over the adjournment to look at the 24 July video again, and gave an initial ruling. 35. In this ruling, the Judge summarised how the issue had emerged and indicated that, although it was not the usual practice, no harm had been done by the Jury having the transcripts. Equally no harm would be done if they had the transcript of the 31October interview so that they had all available transcripts. They would therefore have a complete reminder of all that was said in those interviews rather than just a summary. There could be no unfairness to the defendant if the trial continued with the jury having the transcripts, and, since no transcript had been made of 24 July interview, with them being reminded of his earlier summary of the interview. The Judge noted that the Jury had not asked to consider KH\u2019s demeanour in relation to the 24 July interview, and that Defence Counsel had had a change of heart and now sought to have the 24July video played again to the Jury. This was a change from her initial position when she had said that she thought that the Judge\u2019s summary of the interview would be adequate. It was not appropriate to treat the video of 24 July differently to the others by re-playing it. To do so might encourage a request to re-play the many hours of all the other videos which was not a course that should be adopted without very good reason. This was a possible effect of Counsel\u2019s submission. The Jury would be appropriately directed as to the transcripts and the video, although there was no need to repeat the summary of the cross-examination that had already been given in the summing-up. The Jury would be provided with the 31 October transcript and Counsel would be given time to review whether there were any matters that needed to be added to the summing-up in relation to the 24 July interview. 36. The Jury returned to court at 12.52 and the Judge gave further directions in relation to the transcripts. He told them that it was important for them to concentrate on the witness as she was speaking, and that this was why they had not had the transcripts while they were watching the interviews. He added that KH\u2019s evidence was no different to any other witness whose evidence was not transcribed. He told them that they had received the transcripts inadvertently and that in the \u2018exceptional circumstances\u2019 they should have the transcript of the 31 October interview. There was no transcript of the 24 July interview, but he would remind them of the contents of that interview and if there was anything about KH\u2019s demeanour in that interview that they wished to see then the video could be re-played for them. Finally, he added in relation to the transcripts, \u2018You mustn\u2019t give them any greater status than any other evidence. Please, can I underline that.\u2019 He reminded them that it was only part of the evidence and had no special status, and that they should particularly keep in mind the summary of the cross-examination he had given them the day before. 37. The Jury retired shortly before 1.00, and the Judge then added to his ruling. He said that no objection had been taken to, or additions requested of, his summing-up. Exceptional circumstances had arisen in the case. In reality, the only alternative would have been to discharge the Jury. That would have been wholly undesirable in a case involving a 16-year old witness who had given evidence over three days. A re-trial would not come on for hearing for many months, adding to the strain on her and the appellant who was in custody. Nor was it the first trial in this matter, the first had been aborted following a change of representation. To expect a young complainant to prepare herself for a third time was to be avoided at all costs unless unfairness was likely to be occasioned. None had been identified and there had been \u2018complete agreement on behalf of the Defence to allowing the trial to continue even when the jury had those (three) transcripts and complete agreement to the Jury having the other two \u2026\u2019 The only difficulty arose belatedly in relation to the 24 July interview. No mention had been made of a transcript in Counsel\u2019s lengthy cross-examination of KH, nor was any mention made of the interview in her closing speech. He concluded that there could be no unfairness in a summary of the missing transcript being given with any additions sensibly required by the Defence. 38. Having viewed the 24 July video interview over the midday adjournment, Ms Donovan asked for one addition to the Judge\u2019s summary of that interview. The Judge expressed his displeasure at the manner in which Counsel had summarised the material. As he had not listened to the interview to see whether or not it was correct, the Judge declined to include it in his summary without Counsel first setting out the passage in writing. 39. The Judge then reminded the jury of the summary he had already given as to the 24 July interview. 40. Before turning to the grounds of appeal it is convenient to consider how it was that Jury received some, but not all of the transcripts when they retired. 41. CPD VI Trial 26L specifically addresses the procedure for dealing with a Jury\u2019s access to exhibits and evidence in retirement (with emphasis added): 1. At the end of the summing-up it is also important that the Judge informs the Jury that any exhibits they wish to have will be made available to them. 2. Judges should invite submissions from the advocates as to what material the Jury should retire with and what material before them should be removed, such as the transcript of an ABE interview (which should normally be removed from the jury as soon as the recording has been played). 3. Judges will also need to inform the jury of the opportunity to view certain audio, DVD or CCTV evidence that has been played (excluding, for example ABE interviews). 42. Two points may be noted in relation to the Practice Direction. First, the highlighted passages remind the reader that, even where the Jury are permitted to have a transcript of an ABE interview during the evidence, they should not be permitted to have access to the transcript in retirement. Secondly, as one might expect, it is ultimately for the Judge to ensure what exhibits or other material the Jury should have access to when they retire to consider verdicts. In most cases in the Crown Court this will present no problem; but in some cases it will be necessary for the Judge to take the lead, most conveniently, we suggest in discussion with the advocates on each side. On any view, the ultimate responsibility for dealing with exhibits and material cannot be left to ushers or other court staff who, however capable they may be, cannot be expected to be responsible for what exhibits and materials the jury receives in retirement. 43. The present case presented a problem that was different to other reported cases. There had been no decision to make the transcripts available to the Jury either during the playing of the interviews or in retirement. It is clear that a mistake was made. Someone who did not realise the implications of what they were doing gathered up material which should never have been considered by the Jury and left it in their retiring room. Why the transcript of the 31 October interview was omitted from this material is unclear and does not matter. 44. Those involved in the trial were left in a difficult position. It was rightly recognised that the Jury should not have received the material. The Judge was left with limited choices: (1) to discharge the Jury, (2) to retrieve the transcripts which the Jury had been given, and (3) to give the Jury the additional transcripts they had requested and summarise the video recording of which no transcript had been made. 45. The Judge made clear that the difficulties faced by KH (and to a lesser extent, the appellant) by a retrial militated strongly against (1). His initial view was that the transcripts should be retrieved, see (2), but he eventually decided that the better course was to make available all the transcripts that had been prepared, see (3). 46. On this appeal, Ms Donovan submits: first that the Judge should have discharged the jury when it became known that transcripts of some of KH\u2019s ABE interviews had been inadvertently placed before them; and that the Jury\u2019s access to the interviews in retirement deprived the appellant of a safeguard essential to the fairness of the trial; and that consequently the appeal against conviction should be allowed, see Sardar (above) at [28]. Thereafter, the Judge further erred in allowing the Jury to have the transcript of the interview of 31 October 2014 whilst refusing the defence request that at least that the Jury be permitted to watch the video of the ABE interview of 24 July 2014. She advances a secondary argument, which was not at the forefront of the grounds of appeal, that there were, in any event, material deficiencies in the Judge\u2019s summary of the 24 July interview in his further direction. 47. In our view, it is unnecessary to review in detail the cases prior to Popescu (see above). The judgment of the Court of Appeal in that case sets out the reasons for the limitations on the access to transcripts by juries, by reference to 6 principles. 48. Without seeking to summarise the careful analysis of law and practice in that case, certain points which are relevant to this appeal emerge from Popescu. First, the Court emphasised the care that must be taken before a jury is given transcripts of an ABE interview at all. Transcripts should only be made available to the jury after there has been discussion of the issue between Judge and Counsel in the absence of the jury; and it should only be done if there is a very good reason for it, for example, the evidence would be difficult to follow on the screen or the audio quality is very poor. The reason for this approach is the danger that the Jury may give the written word undue weight, see Welstead [1996] 1 Cr App R 59 page 68, Morris [1998] Crim LR 416, referred to in Popescu at [30]. Otherwise the Prosecution may obtain a procedural and evidential advantage, which weighs unfairly against the defendant Popescu at [25]. Secondly, if the transcripts are given to the Jury, the Judge must warn the jury at that point not to give the transcripts undue weight, to take care to examine the video as it is shown, not least because of the importance of the demeanour of the witness in giving evidence. Thirdly (principle 6), the Jury should not, save in exceptional circumstances, be permitted to retire with the transcripts. Those exceptional circumstances will usually only be present if the Defence positively wants the Jury to have the transcript and the Judge is satisfied that there are very good reasons for this. In such circumstances the Jury should be given an appropriate warning about giving them undue weight. 49. In Popescu the Court was satisfied that the Jury had the transcripts largely because the defence wanted to have them and was aware that they would use them as part of their deliberations. In these circumstances, there was no evidential or procedural unfairness, see Popescu [40]-[43]. In contrast, in Sardar (see above), although the Recorder had allowed the Jury to retire with the transcripts and the Defence consented to this, the Court of Appeal held that there was no good reason for this, that there had been no warning about the use to be made of the transcripts and the fact that the Defence consented was no justification for it,[17]-[19]. 50. Neither of these cases deals directly with the position where the approach to the playing of the ABE interviews without transcripts during the evidence was entirely appropriate; but where an error was made by leaving transcripts in the Jury retiring room. The nearest case is Coshall which was addressed by the Court in Popescu. 27. In R v Coshall, the trial judge had ruled that the jury could have a transcript of the video recording during the complainant's evidence and the jury retained the transcript throughout the remainder of the trial, including their retirement. It appears that the evidence in chief on the video constituted virtually the whole of the prosecution case. 28. Unfortunately, we do not have the transcript of the judgment given in the case of Coshall, which was delivered by Pill LJ. A sizeable extract of the judgment in Coshall was quoted in Welstead, and we think we should quote from the case of Welstead (page 67) where the relevant parts of Coshall are set out: The court [in Coshall] held that the need to maintain a fair balance 'exists equally upon the supply to the jury of the transcript of the video tape' as when a video tape is to be replayed to the jury. Unless the defence consented, \u2018it appears to us to follow from the decision in Rawlings and Broadbent that it will not generally be appropriate for the jury to be supplied with a transcript. We do not intend in this judgment to attempt to predict all possible situations and appropriate reactions to them.\u2019 There was a serious risk in that case of disproportionate weight being attached to one part of the evidence, namely, the complainant's evidence in chief, if the jury had the transcript with them when they retired. 29. In its summary of the principles in Welstead, the court said at point 4, on page 68 of the report: If a transcript of the video-recorded interview is available, the jury should not normally be permitted to take it with them when they retire, unless the defence consents: Coshall. This is because there is no effective safeguard in such circumstances against the jury giving that part of the child's evidence disproportionate weight. 30. In the subsequent case of R v Morris [1998] Crim LR 416, the jury was permitted to retire with the transcript of the video evidence with the defence's consent. On appeal, the conviction was quashed because the judge had given no warning as to prevent the disproportionate weight being given to the transcript. It was held in that case that: Even in cases where there had been consent by the defence, or, as in the present case, the transcript had been introduced in the first instance at the suggestion of the defence, it was incumbent on the judge to give warnings to the jury which would prevent their giving disproportionate weight to the transcript; that consideration should always be given to what should happen once the evidence had come to an end and it was rarely that the jury should be permitted to retire with the transcript of the evidence and then only if they had received an appropriate warning; and that, the judge having summed up the evidence of the complainant much more fully than that of the defence without having given the jury the appropriate warnings, the convictions were unsafe. 51. It is clear that if the Defence have consented to the jury having access to a transcript, that is material, although it is not determinative of the ultimate question: whether the conviction is safe. In Sardar, the Defence consented to the Jury retiring with the transcript (see [19]) but this was held not to be a justification. At [28] the Court concluded that: \u2026 there will be cases, and this is one, where the breach of the practices designed to ensure a fair trial will be so serious that the trial is rendered unfair. 52. In our view the following questions arise: (1) what was the defence approach to the problem that arose; (2) did that amount to an agreement that the jury should have the transcripts available during retirement; (3) what warnings did the Judge give and were they sufficient; and (4) how does what occurred impact on the safety of the convictions? 53. As to the first question, Ms Donovan\u2019s initial reaction was that she agreed that the Jury should have the additional transcripts that they had requested (see [30] above). Quite rightly, the Judge said he would only do that with her full agreement and the appellant\u2019s approval. Thereafter Ms Donovan\u2019s position on behalf of her client changed. She appears to have recognised the practical sense of giving the Jury the transcript of 31 October, but she was (and remained) concerned on behalf of her client that the Jury would not get a transcript of the 24 July interview which she had introduced in the course of KH\u2019s cross-examination. 54. As to the second question, in the light of our conclusion on the first question, we are unable to accept that the Defence agreed to the Jury having the transcripts in retirement. Like the Prosecution and the Judge, the Defence had been placed in a difficult position at short notice. It did not consent, in advance, to the Jury receiving transcripts in retirement; at most it acquiesced in what amounted to a pragmatic response to the Jury enquiry. While we do not exclude the possibility of an agreement in such circumstances, the cases indicate that where the Court is referring to agreement by the Defence, it is referring to an agreement before or at the time a decision is made to permit the Jury to retire with transcripts and not after they have been made available by mistake. 55. As to the third question, it is clear that in circumstances where the jury is permitted to retire with transcripts, they must be warned clearly and emphatically that they should not give disproportionate weight to the transcripts. In our view the Judge\u2019s warning, which we have summarised in [36] above, was insufficient and, necessarily, was given at the wrong time. The warning was insufficiently emphatic in its terms, but more significantly it was given after the jury had been in retirement with three of the transcripts for many hours, during which they would have given them such weight as they thought fit. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary and undesirable to consider what might have been the effect of adopting (2) (see above), with the transcripts being taken back from the Jury, with a very strong warning against relying on them. We should add that we do not think that the Judge can properly be criticised for refusing to adjourn for the preparation of a transcript of the 24 July interview. 56. As to the fourth question, we bear in mind Mr O\u2019Donnell\u2019s submission that the transcripts contained more pages supportive of the Defence case than pages supporting the Prosecution case: the interview of 28 April, 6 June and 24 July had all been led by the Defence as showing that KH had made the allegations against GB rather than the appellant. That is so, but it does not address the weight that the jury may have given to the transcript of 15 July which was central to the Prosecution case. We accept Mr O\u2019Donnell\u2019s submission that these were \u2018exceptional circumstances\u2019, but while we would hope that the circumstances are exceptional, the description throws little light on the correct disposal of this appeal. Nor are we in a position to conclude that the case against the appellant was so overwhelming in the light of the evidence that the breach of the practices designed to ensure a fair trial can be disregarded so that we can conclude that the convictions were safe. 57. We invited submissions at the conclusion of the argument as to whether, if the appeal were allowed, the Prosecution would apply for a retrial and Mr O\u2019Donnell indicated that it would. In our view, there should be a retrial in this case and it should take place as soon as is conveniently possible. Although the prospect of a retrial, in particular for a young witness, is troubling, we are clear that what occurred rendered the trial unfair, and undermined the safety of the convictions. 58. For the reasons set out above, we have concluded that the appeal against the appellant\u2019s convictions must be allowed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lord Justice Simon: 1. We make an order under ss. 45 and 45A of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, that no report may be published which is likely to lead to the child KH being identified. 2. This is an appeal against conviction relating to the Jury\u2019s consideration of transcripts of ABE interviews. The appellant was convicted…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[52833],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7633,15548,7621,29877,18732],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-811799","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-52833","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-interview","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-transcript","kji_keyword-transcripts","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v The Crown - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-the-crown-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v The Crown\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Lord Justice Simon: 1. We make an order under ss. 45 and 45A of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, that no report may be published which is likely to lead to the child KH being identified. 2. This is an appeal against conviction relating to the Jury\u2019s consideration of transcripts of ABE interviews. The appellant was convicted...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-the-crown-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"29 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-the-crown-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-the-crown-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v The Crown - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-01T22:29:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-the-crown-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-the-crown-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-the-crown-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"R v The Crown\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R v The Crown - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-the-crown-2\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v The Crown","og_description":"Lord Justice Simon: 1. We make an order under ss. 45 and 45A of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, that no report may be published which is likely to lead to the child KH being identified. 2. This is an appeal against conviction relating to the Jury\u2019s consideration of transcripts of ABE interviews. The appellant was convicted...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-the-crown-2\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"29 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-the-crown-2\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-the-crown-2\/","name":"R v The Crown - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-01T22:29:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-the-crown-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-the-crown-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-the-crown-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"R v The Crown"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/811799","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=811799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=811799"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=811799"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=811799"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=811799"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=811799"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=811799"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=811799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}