Summary

A man convicted in the District Court of rape of a ten‑year‑old appealed to the High Court, which upheld conviction but reduced life imprisonment to thirty years. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal raising five grounds: alleged irregularities in the cautioned statement recording, unfair identification parade, contradictions in the victim's evidence, hearsay reliance on a third party's account of an oral confession, and impermissible dock identification. The Court of Appeal examined whether the cautioned statement complied with s.50(1)(a) and s.57 CPA and found it was recorded within the basic period after the appellant's arrest on separate allegations and after investigators linked him to the victim; timing and continuity requirements were satisfied. The identification parade complied with statutory and police rules and supported in‑court recognition. The victim's testimony was consistent, the third party's testimony about an oral confession was relevant and corroborative, and medical evidence supported the rape findings. The Court concluded the evidence collectively corroborated the cautioned statement and sustained the conviction, dismissing the appeal in its entirety. Issues Whether the appellant's cautioned statement was lawfully recorded within the period prescribed by s.50(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act and whether it required corroboration by an extra‑judicial statement. Whether the identification parade and subsequent recognition in court were conducted in accordance with s.60 of the Criminal Procedure Act and relevant police procedures, so as to render the identification evidence admissible and reliable. Whether the victim's evidence was internally contradictory and therefore unreliable. Whether the evidence of a third party (PW7) recounting an oral confession by the appellant was hearsay and inadmissible or whether it was relevant and admissible for corroboration and investigative purposes. Whether the conviction was improperly founded on dock identification alone. Held The Court held that the appellant's cautioned statement was recorded on 26/4/2013 within the basic period permitted by s.50(1)(a) CPA because the appellant had been taken into custody on 25/4/2013 in relation to separate allegations and only thereafter was linked to the victim; therefore no extension under s.51 was required. The recording complied with s.57(2)(e) (start and end times recorded) and the interview was not interrupted, so s.57(2)(f) did not arise. The Court held that the identification parade was properly conducted in accordance with s.60 CPA and Police General Order No. 232, and that the victim's successful identification at the parade supported subsequent in‑court recognition; dock identification was not the sole basis of conviction and did not undermine its evidential value. The Court found the victim's evidence to be consistent on key points (the identity of the person who took her, the events at the unfinished house and the assaults) and not internally contradictory, thus reliable. The Court held that PW7's evidence about the appellant's oral confession was not hearsay in the sense of being irrelevant; it was properly received to show that the appellant had orally admitted offences to third parties, which prompted police investigation that independently linked him to the victim, and thus it had corroborative and investigative relevance. Accordingly, having found the cautioned statement admissible and corroborated by the victim's evidence and other material (including PW7's account and medical evidence), the Court concluded the conviction was safe. Order In the event, this appeal which is devoid of merit is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

Flynote