R v A (CA194/07 and CA271/07)

A, a 40-year-old woman, appealed against her conviction and sentence for six counts of unlawful sexual connection against two underage male complainants, B (aged 15) and C (aged 14). The appeal against conviction was based on alleged errors in the summing up of the trial judge, specifically regarding intoxication and the use of "similar fact" evidence. The appeal against sentence argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal addressed each ground of appeal in turn.

In relation to the summing up, the Court found that the judge's direction on intoxication was orthodox and aligned with the established case law. The court found that the jury rejected A's claim of insensibility due to intoxication, and there was sufficient evidence to support this rejection. As for the "similar fact" evidence, the Court found that the judge provided appropriate warnings to the jury, and there was a strong case for the high degree of sameness between the events, which warranted the use of such evidence. The court concluded that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

Regarding the sentence appeal, the Court found that the trial judge had adopted a proper starting point and made appropriate deductions for A's previous good character. The Court acknowledged that the sentence was within the range available to the sentencing judge, considering the aggravating features of the case, such as the predatory nature of the behaviour, breach of trust within the family, and the continuing course of conduct. The Court dismissed the appeal against sentence.

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence, affirming the original decisions made by the trial judge.