M, R v

[2] For the purpose of conducting the appeal before this court Mr Berry QC and Mr Taggart appeared on behalf of the appellant while Ms McCullough was instructed on behalf of the PPS. The court is grateful to all counsel for their carefully constructed and attractively delivered written and oral submissions.

[5] The injured party's mother arose at about 9.30 next morning and met the injured party in the living room. She asked him if the appellant and A had left and he replied that A was in his (the injured party's) bed. She decided to let him sleep.

[7] The injured party's mother did not know what to do and telephoned a friend of hers who was also friendly with the appellant's mother. She told her to telephone the police which she did. When the injured party's mother returned to the bedroom the appellant had left having exited through the bedroom window.

[8] During the course of interview by the police the injured party accepted that he had thought that he had been abused by A until his mother told him that it had been the appellant. He explained that when he was shown a picture of A he denied that he was the person by whom he had been assaulted. He said that the person by whom he had been abused had a scar or mark on his face and was wearing a blue hoodie. He said that person had dark hair but it was lighter than A's. The appellant denied that he had a mark or scar on his face and the jury were given an opportunity to examine him.

[9] The injured party's sister gave evidence during the course of the trial. In direct evidence she was not asked about showing the injured party photographs on her telephone. She was asked about the photographs in cross-examination by counsel then appearing on behalf of the appellant. She explained that the particular mobile phone had been broken and that she no longer had the exact photographs. Counsel had earlier confirmed with the injured party that he had been shown photographs by his sister.