Annabel Gough, instructed by Sam Yazigi from Waterfords Solicitors, represented a 20 year old defendant who was accused of rape and sexual assault of two girls aged between 3-5 at the time of the alleged incidents. The defendant being 13-14 years old himself at the relevant time.http://waterfordssolicitors.co.uk/who-are-we/sam-yazigi
After a full trial in May 2022, the jury returned a not guilty verdict on count 1, rape of complainant 1, but were unable to reach a verdict on counts 2 and 3, sexual assault by penetration of complainant 2. The Crown indicated they would seek a retrial on the counts 2 and 3 but this was opposed by defence as an abuse of process.
The alleged offences occurred 2015-2016 and the allegations were initially made in May 2017, the defendant was interviewed under caution 4 days later. The investigation was essentially complete shortly after but the CPS did not authorise charges until January 2021. Video recorded cross examination occurred in August 2021 when the complainants were 8 and 10 years old and the 6 day trial took place in May 2022, the defendant now being 20 years old.
The Crown and the police were ordered to provide an explanation for the delay between police interview in May 2017 and summons in March 2021. The prosecution conceded the delay in this matter is unacceptable. Whilst expressing apologies, Surrey Police admited “we have, at times brought significant and unaccountable delay to this investigation.” The COVID-19 pandemic was not the reason for the delay in this case.
In his final ruling, Mr Recorder found that the case should have commenced in the Youth Court no later than 6 months after the complaints in May 2017. “This was a case which, given the age of the girls and the dates of which the complaints related cried out for expedition. But for great swathes of time, nothing happened at all. Even at the end, in 2021, it took two months between the authorisation of charges and the issue of the summons.”
After a full abuse of process argument in September 2022, Mr Recorder stayed the case of counts 2 and 3, therefore not allowing the Crown to continue to a retrial. Mr Recorder found “the delay was almost entirely caused by the prosecution in its widest sense, seen in its proper context of a child and later young person is a serious breach of his Article 6 right to a (fair) trial within a reasonable time.” Given the context of the defendant’s age and the length of delay Mr Recorder found the case exceptionally falls into the category of “cases where the delay was of such an order, or where the prosecutor’s breach was such, as to make it unfair that the proceedings should continue.”
The Recorder also found that the defendant was “seriously prejudiced by the delay” and for that, and other reasons mentioned in his judgment, a fair trial was no longer possible. In the “exceptional circumstances of this case, and on its facts, it would have been unjust and oppressive to permit these proceedings to continue.”
Mr Recorder made the following final remarks in his judgment: “I finish by a heartfelt expression that this ruling can draw a line in the sand and that both families can now find closure in what has been an exceptionally difficult period of their lives.”
After review, the Crown indicated they would not seek to appeal this terminatory ruling.
