ON APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE
and
MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DBE
____________________
Regina |
Respondant |
|
- and - |
||
L |
Appellant |
____________________
Peter McCartney for the Appellant
Hearing date: 15th October 2015
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lady Justice Rafferty:
The defence case
Grounds of Appeal
"….the only diagnostic finding of previous penile penetration …is a full thickness transaction between three and nine o'clock. …The findings of "hymenal tears" at three and ten o'clock… may be naturally occurring …variants….of no forensic significance…. If the tear at seven o'clock was (sic) not clearly demonstrated to be a complete transaction…then it could have been ..naturally occurring…If all three "tears" were not …complete transactions.. …then together they could represent the notches in a naturally occurring fimbriated hymen. If the tear at seven o'clock was (sic) ….a full transaction…not a partial tear cleft or notch, …that finding would be diagnostic of previous penetration with an object the size of a penis….The documented findings, statements of the two doctors and the contemporaneous notes of [the GP] fall short of the requirements for reliable interpretation and possible corroboration between the findings and the allegation"
"…..Dr Ritchie concludes that the tears, or at least two.. ..could have been congenital variants. It is apparent therefore that even had Dr Ritchie's evidence been adduced at trial the medical evidence would have been inconclusive one way or the other. The evidence of all the experts would have been consistent either with abuse or in the case of Dr Ritchie …with a congenital variation"
Conclusion