DAVID PARTRIDGE FROM WOODBURY FAILS IN COURT TO OVERTURN CHILD RAPE CONVICTION IN LONDON

In a significant legal development, David George Partridge, a 59-year-old resident of Globe Hill, Woodbury, has seen his attempt to overturn a conviction for child rape dismissed by the highest courts in London. The case, which dates back to the 1990s, involved serious allegations that led to Partridge being sentenced to 14 years in prison in March after a jury at Exeter Crown Court found him guilty of three counts of rape.

Partridge’s appeal, filed recently, claimed that new evidence had emerged which could potentially cast doubt on the jury’s original verdicts. He argued that this evidence warranted a reconsideration of his case, asserting that justice required a fresh look at the facts. However, the Court of Appeal, comprising three senior judges including Mr. Justice Davis, Lord Justice Pill, and Mr. Justice Lindblom, was not persuaded by his claims. They concluded that the new evidence was not central to the case and did not justify overturning the convictions.

During the hearing, Mr. Justice Davis recounted the details of the crimes, which took place in the 1990s. He explained that Partridge had lured a young girl, who was under the age of 10, to his residence on Globe Hill. The judge noted that Partridge had threatened to harm her if she screamed, which was a key factor in the jury’s decision to convict.

Michelle Clarke, representing the appellant Roberts at the Court of Appeal, described her client as “an inadequate social misfit” who had not cooperated with his legal team during the trial. She argued that the new evidence, consisting of additional witness statements, was in the interest of justice to consider and could potentially lead to the quashing of the convictions.

However, Mr. Justice Davis, along with the other judges, dismissed these claims. He stated that Roberts was sufficiently communicative to have informed his lawyers of any new evidence during the trial. The court reviewed the proposed evidence and found that it added nothing of substance. The judges emphasized that the evidence merely suggested that Partridge was “not the type of man who could have done such a thing,” which was insufficient to warrant a retrial.

Furthermore, the judges highlighted that the legal team had done everything possible to present Roberts’ case, and that the principle of finality in criminal justice must be upheld. They concluded that there was no reasonable explanation for why this evidence was not presented at the original trial, and therefore, overturning the convictions at this stage would not be in the interests of justice.

Earlier in the year, the prosecution had detailed the nature of Partridge’s crimes. Prosecutor Andrew Oldland explained that Partridge’s initial offenses involved luring a young girl with offers of sweets and attention, initially without sexual intent. However, he eventually found opportunities to be alone with her, during which he touched her under her clothes and committed rape, despite her protests and pleas for him to stop. The court was also told that Partridge had confidence to abuse another young girl, having previously “got away with it.” This second victim confided in an adult in 2008, leading to police involvement and the subsequent charges.

Despite the appeal’s failure, the case remains a stark reminder of the serious nature of these crimes and the ongoing efforts of the justice system to address such offenses, even years after they occur.