An extension of time was sought to submit the appeal, which is usually up to 28-days after a conviction, due to alleged new evidence arising in the victim impact statement which was written and presented after the time limit expired. 

The Bailiff, sitting as a single judge of the Court of Appeal, rejected the application in December, but Trenchard elevated it to the full Court with the hearing starting on Monday.  

Advocate Oliver Fattorini, representing the appellant, said there were material differences contained in that impact statement and the evidence told to police when the offence was first investigated, relating to people the victim had spoken to about the rape. 

He said these differences amounted to new evidence which affected the credibility of victim - the only witness in the case - and was emblematic of dishonesty: “Such inconsistencies have not been tested before Jurats."

Trenchard maintains that the rape complaint was motivated by transphobia. 

The prosecution rejected this, saying these potential inconsistencies had been available for interrogation during the trial but weren’t addressed by the defence. In any case, it was submitted those factors wouldn’t have contradicted the “compelling evidence” from the victim about the rape itself.  

The three appeal judges concluded a day later that these matters, if raised at trial, would not have created doubt over the guilt of Trenchard. 

The judges said they were “not as starkly inconsistent as the appellant submits”, relating to “peripheral issues” which the Jurats weren’t being called upon to determine guilt.  

They also agreed that the defence chose not to interrogate these matters during cross-examination.  

READ MORE...

Guilty verdict delivered in rape trial