A sex offender put behind bars in 2023 for abusing a position of trust has had his appeal against conviction turned down.

Maleke Martin was convicted in December 2022 on three charges: two of sexual exploitation of a young person by a person in a position of trust, and one of showing offensive material to a child.

In April 2023 he was sentenced to imprisonment for 13½ years, 16 years and six years respectively, to run concurrently for a total of 16 years.

Martin sought to challenge his conviction on several grounds, claiming error by Puisne Judge Shade Subair Williams, who presided over his trial.

In particular Elizabeth Christopher, representing Martin, argued that new child safeguarding legislation had been implemented by the judge without the necessary level of formal training afforded to participants.

The Court of Appeal backed the judge’s handling of the case, along with disputed aspects of the Crown’s argument.

The court then considered the impact on the case of child protection legislation brought through an amendment to the Evidence Act 1905 in 2019 and made effective in July 2022 under the Child Safeguarding (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2019.

Changes brought by the legislation included updates on how the courts would deal with child witnesses in criminal trials relating to sexual offences.

In its ruling handed down last month, the court noted: “This was the first new case conducted under the new regimen.

“It was submitted that the judge failed to discuss with counsel in advance how limitations placed on counsel in questioning the child complainant would be dealt with.”

The defence argued there had been a lack of clarity on criteria for questioning, and that an intermediary brought for the trial had not been adequately briefed.

However, the Court of Appeal ruled it was “satisfied that counsel was competent” and there had been no requirement for the court to ensure that counsel had any specific expertise.

The court lastly considered the argument that “the judge had erred in implementing the child safeguarding legislation without any formalised training for the participants involved including the intermediary”.

The ruling found that Ms Christopher had described “the conference on the subject which both she and the judge had attended”, and that the intermediary used had been “an experienced and well qualified professional who had frequently acted as a litigation guardian“, with no objections taken as to her suitability for her role.

The court found that if Ms Christopher or other counsel did not feel competent to conduct the trial without formalised training, “she should have declined to act, or at least raised the issue with the judge at one of the case management hearings”.

It ruled: “In this case the defence was conducted by senior counsel who had attended a conference on the issue of child safeguarding, and there is no suggestion made anywhere that Ms Christopher did not conduct the trial with the necessary skill and competence, or that the trial was unsafe because of the lack of training given to counsel.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers