The Court of Appeal has affirmed the conviction of a man for multiple offences, including rape, addressing concerns about his solicitors’ misconduct in handling the case.
In 2018, an individual referred to as ‘PG’ was convicted of several crimes: three counts of rape, four counts of indecent assault, one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, one count of indecency with a child, and one count of cruelty to a person under the age of 16. Although some charges were dismissed, the core of the prosecution’s case was supported by the testimony of three complainants.
The Court was informed that PG’s solicitors had not effectively prepared for the case, which led to criticism from the Legal Ombudsman. Despite the solicitors’ inadequacies, the effectiveness of the barrister they instructed mitigated these issues. Mrs Justice Stacey, delivering the ruling, noted that PG was understandably concerned due to the lack of confidence in his solicitors. However, she concluded that these criticisms did not affect the overall outcome of the trial. In a twist of events, the trial judge dismissed the first jury due to unrelated issues, providing PG’s barrister with additional time to review crucial evidence that had previously been inaccessible.
Furthermore, the barrister successfully challenged and included bad character evidence against a witness, strengthening the prosecution’s case. Despite the evident shortcomings, PG did not criticise the barrister’s competence, acknowledging their role in rectifying the solicitors’ failings. Mrs Justice Stacey highlighted that there was no causal link between the guilty verdicts and the solicitors’ shortcomings, as the trial’s integrity was maintained.
The court dismissed other complaints from PG, affirming that substantial evidence was presented to the jury, which adequately justified the conviction. The mixed outcomes of the trial further indicated that a balanced and fair procedure was followed, despite the initial procedural missteps.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal’s decision underscores the robustness of the legal process, affirming the conviction based on the strength of the evidence and the capability of the legal professionals involved, despite initial procedural faults by the solicitors.
