"Well [C1] told you she was regularly taken to see her GP because she got thrush so often when she was too young to be getting it that often, or even at all. 'It was sore,' she said, and it used to wake her up at night. And in this context, Miss Donovan said to her that she was lying about everything, except that limited admission that [the appellant] has made. [C1] said, 'I wasn’t. I wouldn't be at court giving evidence, if I was,' she said. 'And furthermore,' she said '... seven-year-olds don’t get severe thrush.' That’s the sort of thing you bring your collective wisdom, judgment and experience with you for. Those of you who have been a seven-year-old girl or have seven-year-old daughters or granddaughters or know people who have, that is something that you will have to consider whether seven-year-old girls do, in fact, get severe and regular thrush. [C1's mother] said [C's] vagina was visibly sore and red and the doctor suggested that it was because her body was producing too much yeast. [C1] was itching a lot and it wasn’t and it was reoccurring. [C1's mother] said it just wouldn’t go away. [The Appellant's] evidence was that he denied causing these issues and he said there were times when there was no toilet roll at home and they all had to use towels to wipe themselves. Asked if he was aware that [C] was taken to the doctors, [the Appellant] said no. You may think, members of the jury, this issue of [C] having thrush, aged seven, is a very significant issue. You might want to ask yourself how that occurred. Is the likely explanation she got it because she was being digitally penetrated or is there some other explanation, as the defendant says there was? Of note, you might think, the defendant’s explanation that it could’ve been caused by the lack of toilet roll at home and the use of towels was not something that [C1's mother] was given the opportunity to deal with when she was cross-examined. That alternative was not put to her."
"Do you have dates and length of diagnosis of thrush?"
"And so I'm going to have to ask you to continue with your deliberations without that."
"The Judge in his summing up made a highly prejudicial comment in favour of the prosecution by says 'what 7-year-old do you know, members of the jury who has had thrush?' It is submitted that the Judge should not have shown that bias in the face of what was speculative evidence at best. It is submitted that a comment such as this on an essential part of the evidence rendered the conviction unsafe. "
"The judge in his summing up and written directions to the jury made it clear that the facts were for the jury alone. ... Given the allegations made, a proper, common sense, conclusion that the jury was entitled to draw from the evidence was that the ultimate cause of the ‘sore’ ‘red raw’ vagina suffered by [C] was the repeated digital penetration inflicted upon her by the appellant. In this case it is submitted that the directions given to the jury were clear, concise, and wholly sufficient to secure a fair trial and to ensure that there was no adverse speculation as against the appellant."
"In my speech to the jury I asked them to ignore the medical evidence as it was mere speculation and there was no medical evidence to say if her red and sore vagina had been caused by a yeast overload and itching as confirmed by [C1's mother] or by [the Appellant] whom she said touched and penetrated her every night. No doctor was called to say either way so it was speculation as to what had caused [C's] vagina to be red and reminded them that it was the duty of the Crown to prove to them, so they are sure and that there was no expert evidence on this point to make them sure her sore vagina was caused by [the Appellant]. No one mentioned the fact that, had there been any interference, the doctor would or might have noticed that at the time."
"This issue of [C] having thrush, aged seven, is a very significant issue ... Is the likely explanation she got it because she was being digitally penetrated or is there some other explanation, as the defendant says there was?"