“All those years ago, when I had that trouble, if the worst came to the worst, I could have gone to jail but I didn’t want to sign the Sex Register” and “I’m just saying if the worst came to the worst I could have done the time”
“[SR] is saying that in the tent that she’s been asked to suck your penis, which she has done. She’s then explained that something’s come out of the top of your willy, or your peep peep hole.” “[SR] also mentioned a sexual encounter where again she’s been asked to suck your willy… on the settee.”
“Have you ever asked [SR] to remove her, what she calls her knickers, her underclothes?” “Whilst you’ve been in the tent with [SR] have you ever kissed her… cos she’s saying that you’ve actually asked for a kiss in the tent.”
“She also states that he was lying in bed naked with no blankets on himself talking to her”
“Right so we’ve seized a number of videos. How many videos have you got in your collection?”
“Amanda and colleague, Tony Evans, interviewed [SR] yesterday and although [she] failed to disclose and the medical evidence is unsupportive of sexual abuse, both Amanda and Tony were concerned by [her father’s] attitude towards police and his daughter.”
“Have received return of CPS file signed by Senior Prosecution Officer Mr Peoples stating that due to lack of forensic and medical evidence he suggests that no further action should be taken against [the appellant].”
“Now in this case there is no doubt that the original police paper file was destroyed. It became mouldy from water damage and as a result was, along with other files, destroyed. The video recording of the 2002 interview of (SR) has been lost so that all that remains of that is the typed up notes of the officer who was observing the interview and we know from the length of the interview, which I think was 50 minutes, and the fact that the notes are contained within two sides of paper that many, many more observations, many more things were said than appears in those notes and that has been lost. We do have the transcripts of the defendant’s interview at that time, the police in, in his interview under caution to the police and we do have certain documents. Those documents arise from the fact that because of the childcare concerns there was a sharing of documentation with Social Services who of course have responsibility for childcare matters and so there is documentation relating to the liaison between the police and the Social Services but what is there is described by counsel for the defence as fragments, or fragmentary and there is no doubt that other documents have been lost. The contents of those documents is unknown. There are, going back to the 2002 investigation, there’s a considerable doubt about the medical evidence. We don’t know for certain that she was examined, I think the inferences is that she was but we don’t, we have no medical notes, we don’t know for what the doctor was looking but we, we do know that it was negative in the sense that there was nothing that was probative of the defendant’s guilt. We know that these video tapes were taken. We don’t know what was on them, what was on them was clearly not probative of guilt. We know that there were forensic tests carried out in respect of the tent and those were negative but undoubtedly there would have been other matters explored, family members who, to whom the complainant had initially been made, on would have expected to have been the subject of a statement. If they were, that has gone. Matters have been raised which counsel says one might have expected to have been explored with members of the family If they were, there is no record of it. So take that into account when considering whether the defendant has been placed at a real disadvantage when deciding whether the prosecution has satisfied you of his guilt.”