Introduction

In the landmark case Lowther, R. v ([2022] EWCA Crim 1807), the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) addressed the complexities surrounding the application of Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. This case revolves around Joseph Lowther, who was convicted of murder in June 2014 and subsequently sought to appeal his conviction based on fresh evidence submitted in 2021. The key issues pertain to the admissibility of fresh evidence post the exhaustion of standard appeal avenues and the strict interpretation of procedural rules governing criminal appeals.

Summary of the Judgment

Joseph Lowther was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in June 2014. After multiple refusals to appeal his conviction, Lowther applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which was denied in 2020. In October 2021, he lodged a fresh notice of appeal against his conviction, citing new evidence he claimed would render his conviction unsafe. The Registrar deemed the application ineffective, asserting that Lowther had exhausted his right of appeal. Lowther appealed this decision, contending that Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 allowed for a fresh appeal based on new evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed Lowther's appeal, upholding the Registrar's decision and emphasizing the stringent limitations on reopening appeals after exhaustion of standard procedures.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key cases that shape the current understanding of appeal procedures under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968:

• R v Pinfold [1988] QB 462: Established that once an appeal under Section 1 is unsuccessful, Section 23 does not permit a subsequent appeal based on fresh evidence.
• R v Yasain [2016] QB 146: Affirmed the principle of finality in appeals, allowing reopening only in cases of procedural defects causing real injustice.
• R v Gohil [2018] 1 Cr App R 30: Clarified that reopening appeals is limited to nullity or procedural defects, emphasizing the necessity of avoiding manifest injustice.
• R v CC [2020] 1 Cr App R 15: Reinforced that applications to reopen appeals based on fresh evidence are generally inappropriate if alternative remedies like the CCRC exist.
• R v Zuman [2021] EWCA Crim 399: Highlighted that the jurisdiction to reopen is confined to exceptional circumstances beyond procedural errors.
• R v Holland [2021] EWCA Crim 1056: Summarized that new grounds for appeal should be pursued through the CCRC, not by additional appeals under Section 23.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously analyzed the statutory framework governing appeals. Section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 permits a single appeal against conviction, subject to the Court’s discretion. Section 23 allows the Court of Appeal to receive new evidence, but only if it was not previously available and meets stringent criteria. The Court referenced precedents to emphasize that Section 23 does not constitute a second avenue for appeal once an initial appeal has been exhausted. The applicant's reliance on Section 23 was deemed inappropriate as the fresh evidence did not align with the narrow exceptions outlined in prior case law.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the doctrine of finality in criminal appeals, underscoring that once standard appeal routes are exhausted, reopening cases based on new evidence is exceptionally rare and tightly regulated. It clarifies that reliance on Section 23 to establish a separate appeal after an unsuccessful initial appeal is unfounded. This decision serves as a precedent, deterring similar attempts to circumvent the established appeal process and ensuring that the criminal justice system maintains procedural integrity and finality in convictions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Lowther, R. v ([2022] EWCA Crim 1807) underscores the stringent limitations surrounding the reopening of criminal appeals based on new evidence. By adhering closely to established precedents, the court emphasized the sanctity of procedural finality in the criminal justice system. This ruling not only reaffirms the restricted scope of Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 but also highlights the necessity for appellants to exhaust all appropriate channels, such as the CCRC, before seeking alternative appeal mechanisms. The judgment serves as a pivotal reference point for future cases involving attempts to reinitiate appeals post the exhaustion of standard appeal avenues, ensuring that the integrity and finality of judicial decisions are maintained.