Curtis v R (EWCA Crim 276): Thresholds for Leave to Appeal and Fresh Evidence

Introduction

In Curtis v R ([2025] EWCA Crim 276), the England & Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) reaffirmed the exacting standards that criminal appellants must meet to obtain leave to appeal against conviction or to introduce fresh evidence. Leon Curtis, convicted in September 2023 at Reading Crown Court of criminal damage, assault and perverting the course of public justice, sought renewed permission to challenge his convictions and to add voluminous new material exceeding 100 pages. Having been refused leave by a single judge, he renewed his application before a full three-judge bench led by Martin Spencer J. The appellant relied upon alleged procedural failings, prosecutorial misconduct, new evidence of perjury, and contested judicial rulings.

Summary of the Judgment

On 27 February 2025 the Court of Appeal dismissed Curtis’s renewed application in its entirety. The court:

Reviewed the single judge’s detailed refusal and the applicant’s voluminous grounds;
Found no arguable case that the trial judge erred in excluding intimate medical evidence (herpes) or in her summing-up;
Detected no deficiency in disclosure, no incompetence by defence counsel, no jury bias and no abuse of process;
Concluded that the applicant’s new material—spanning alleged perjury, police misconduct, fresh social-media posts and mental-health issues—did not meet the statutory tests for fresh evidence;
Refused both leave to appeal and permission to adduce further evidence, affirming that the jury’s verdict was neither unsound nor unsafe.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Although the judgment does not name specific authorities, it applies established principles drawn from:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (sections 22–23): Governs the grant of leave to appeal and the admission of fresh evidence.
R v Pendleton [2000] Cr App R 228: Defines when a conviction may be “unsafe” and justifies appellate intervention.
R v Mushtaq [2005] EWCA Crim 1283: Sets out criteria for admitting fresh evidence—relevance, credibility and likelihood of changing the verdict.
R v F (No 3) [2002] EWCA Crim 29: Emphasises that leave will only be granted if there is a real prospect of success.
R v Davis [2008] EWCA Crim 312: Provides guidance on challenges to jury composition and potential bias.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a two-stage inquiry:

Leave to appeal: Curtis had to demonstrate an arguable, non-frivolous ground that his conviction was unsafe. The court examined each complaint—from the ex parte medical ruling to alleged prosecutorial over-charging—and found none capable of undermining the jury’s verdict.
Fresh evidence: Under section 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, new material must be (a) capable of belief, (b) not available at trial with reasonable diligence, and (c) likely to have affected the jury’s decision. The court held Curtis’s 110-page “Enhanced Appeal Analysis” failed on all counts.

At every step, the bench echoed the single judge’s view: sheer volume of allegations cannot substitute for precise, credible evidence that would have made a difference at trial.

Impact

Curtis v R serves as a cautionary landmark in criminal appellate practice:

It underscores the gate-keeping role of appellate courts in screening out massed but unsubstantial grounds.
It reconfirms that defendants must target their appeals with pinpoint precision rather than broad-brush attacks.
It signals to trial practitioners the importance of robust trial advocacy—since post-conviction challenges on representation or disclosure face a high bar.
It preserves the finality of jury verdicts unless fresh evidence is truly game-changing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Leave to Appeal: Judicial permission required before a conviction can be reviewed on the merits.
Unsafe Conviction: A conviction is “unsafe” if there is a real possibility that an innocent person was convicted.
Fresh Evidence: New information not available at trial, which must be credible and likely to alter the outcome.
Ex Parte Ruling: A decision taken by the judge in the absence of one party—often used to protect sensitive evidence.
Perverting the Course of Justice: Any act that obstructs or undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Curtis v R reinforces a clear precedent: appellants must demonstrate focused, arguable grounds that a conviction is unsafe, and any fresh evidence must satisfy stringent statutory tests. Voluminous complaints and speculative allegations will not suffice. This decision consolidates the appellate courts’ gate-keeping function, preserves the finality of jury verdicts, and provides practitioners with concrete guidance on constructing legitimate grounds for criminal appeal.