A man jailed for 35 years in 2023 for a string of sex offences against two young sisters has had his conviction overturned on appeal.

Locksley Cummings, 44, won his case this week when the Court of Appeal quashed his conviction.

The court heard that prosecutors would not seek to have the matter retried.

In a written ruling handed down yesterday, Justice of Appeal Geoffrey Bell wrote that the Supreme Court had failed to properly deal with prejudicial comments made by the mother of the complainants while she was on the stand, tainting the jury.

“I have no doubt that the mother’s response was highly prejudicial, such that there could not, in my view, be any direction which the judge could have given so as to overcome the unfairness which the prejudicial answer by the mother had caused,” the judge wrote.

In a high-profile case dating back more than a decade, Mr Locksley faced multiple sex charges against two minor sisters allegedly committed over the course of 14 years between 2007 and 2021.

Both alleged victims were aged about 8 when the assaults reportedly began. Prosecutors claimed that they continued until both girls were in their early teens.

The trial initially started on February 3 last year; however, one juror was quickly discharged after they indicated they had a conflict in the case.

Shortly after the trial began, the complainants’ mother made a prejudicial comment on the stand, sparking an immediate application for a retrial.

The judge refused the application and indicated to counsel that she would instruct the jury to disregard the comment, but as soon as the jury returned to the courtroom, the judge received a note from a juror indicating that they also had a conflict.

The second juror was discharged and on February 7, another jury pool was summonsed and a new jury was selected.

However, five of the jurors from the original trial who had heard the comments made by the mother were selected to sit on the jury for the new trial.

While the selection of the jurors sparked another application for a mistrial, the judge responded that the objection should have been made before or during the jury selection process.

“There then followed extensive discussion between the counsel and the judge, during the course of which the judge recognised the difficulty of raising the issue with a jury of which five members had heard the mother’s comment and seven had not, noting that to raise it would highlight something which had not been heard by those seven members,” the Court of Appeal judgment stated.

“The discussion included consideration as to how the matter could be dealt with by a strong warning to the jury to consider only the evidence in the trial, to which the defence counsel seemed at one point to accede.

“In the end, the judge refused the application for a mistrial and the trial continued.”

The jury later found Mr Cummings guilty of five offences, including sexual exploitation against both of the complainants, who cannot be identified for legal reasons.

Elizabeth Christopher, for Mr Cummings, said the handling of the matter had left the trial unfair and that the conviction could not stand.

Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, highlighted to the Court of Appeal the warnings that the judge did issue during the trial, but the appeal panel found the directions could not remedy the problem.

“To make any direct reference to the utterance would only serve to emphasise the prejudicial comment so far as the five jurors were concerned and no doubt raise questions in the mind of the seven,” the judgment stated.

“In short, the only course open to the judge was to declare a mistrial and start afresh with an uncontaminated jury, and that could have been achieved if the judge had granted the application made by counsel to declare a mistrial at an early stage.”

The judgment noted that while the question of a retrial was raised during the hearing, Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, indicated that she would not seek a retrial.

The mother of the two girls at the centre of the trial told The Royal Gazette she was “heartbroken and deeply disappointed” by the decision.

She said: “His release, due to an administrative error, feels like a betrayal of the justice system that was meant to protect us and hold him accountable.”

She said the ruling “raised serious concerns for other children and families in the community”.

The mother added: “I am determined to do everything in my power to protect my children and ensure that this error is not overlooked or repeated.”

Claiming that her trust in the legal system had been undermined, she said: “No family should ever have to relive the trauma of wondering if the system will truly protect them.”

Ms Clarke told the Gazette: “The appeal against conviction was heard and allowed on a ground related to a jury irregularity. That irregularity led the court to find that the conviction was unsafe.

“It is not a reflection on the veracity of the complainants or the conduct of the police investigation or the prosecution.”

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