P

---

P was convicted of rape by a majority verdict at his second trial (the jury at the first trial having been unable to reach a verdict). At the time of the alleged rape, the complainant was 14 years old. P was 27 and had recently married the complainant’s grandmother. P denied the allegation which he believed was motivated by the complainant and her mother not liking him personally. Extracts from the complainant’s underwear indicated the presence of DNA of at leas three individuals including P. However, the DNA would have got there as a result of accidental transference and could have come from any body fluid (this was clear at trial).

The conviction was overturned due to the complainant submitting an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) making claims that did not appear in her complaint to the police and which appeared to be dishonest. For example, she claimed that she became pregnant as a result of the rape and had undergone a termination and had been infected with gonorrhoea and chlamydia as a result of the rape. The complainant claimed there was evidence to support this account but she couldn’t find the documents. Her medical records show she was treated for chlamydia when she was pregnant by her boyfriend and that the pregnancy was terminated, but this occurred two months before the alleged rape. The complainant’s explanation was that the events surrounding her pregnancy and ill health must have become confused in her mind.

The Court of Appeal concluded that at least part of the application to the CICA was false and the complainant’s credibility was significantly damaged. The scientific evidence could not substantiate the conviction by itself, and so the conviction was quashed.

< Back to Case Search < Back to Overview Graph