Greaves, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant was convicted on 10 May 2021 at Kingston upon Hull Crown Court of multiple counts of indecent assault against a single complainant, referred to as PB. The offences occurred between 1987 and 1990 when the complainant was aged between 13 and 15 years old, and the applicant was approximately 15 years older. The applicant operated a mobile grocery business and had a relationship of trust with the complainant's family. He groomed the complainant and engaged in escalating sexual abuse, including digital and penile penetration, and regular intercourse. The complainant became pregnant twice during the abuse, resulting in one adoption and one termination arranged by the applicant.

The applicant was sentenced on 25 August 2021 to 12 years' imprisonment for seven counts of indecent assault. He initially applied for leave to appeal against sentence, which was refused by both a single judge and the full court. Subsequently, he renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction, seeking an extension of time of 704 days, which was refused by the single judge.

The applicant admitted during police interview and in his defence statement that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant when she was 14, but denied the indecent assault charges at trial. The trial judge gave a bad character direction to the jury but no good character direction, despite the applicant being of effective good character at the time of the offences, apart from later unrelated driving convictions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in law in his approach to legal directions concerning the applicant's character, rendering the conviction unsafe.
2. Whether the applicant was entitled to a good character direction, either in full or limited to the credibility limb, given his admission of prior sexual activity with the complainant.
3. Whether the judge's bad character direction was appropriate in light of the applicant's admissions and the evidence presented.
4. Whether an extension of time to bring the appeal against conviction should be granted, considering the delay and reasons provided.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The applicant contended that he was of effective good character and entitled to both limbs of a good character direction.
• Alternatively, he argued that at least the credibility limb of a good character direction should have been given due to his admission of consensual sexual activity.
• He asserted that it was incorrect for the judge to give a propensity direction based on his own admissions.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution maintained that the trial judge did not err in refusing a good character direction because the applicant's admitted misconduct altered his character status.
• They relied on the precedent set in R v Hunter [2015] EWCA Crim 631, which grants the trial judge broad discretion in such matters.
• The prosecution argued that the judge's bad character direction was appropriate and correctly left the issue of propensity to the jury without asserting it as a certainty.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the lengthy delay in seeking an extension of time and found the explanations inadequate and the delay excessive, concluding that extending time was not in the interests of justice. The court agreed with the single judge that the applicant's admission of sexual intercourse with the complainant when she was under 16 constituted bad character, justifying the bad character direction given to the jury. The court held that the trial judge was not obliged to give a good character direction, even limited to credibility, because the applicant’s own admission altered the fairness assessment. The court emphasized that the trial judge must exercise discretion based on the evidence and the circumstances, and here the judge's approach was reasonable and appropriate. The jury was made aware that the applicant had no relevant convictions for this type of offence, and no further direction was required. Even if time had been extended, the court found no arguable merit in the grounds of appeal against conviction and would have refused leave.

Holding and Implications

The court refused the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal against conviction.

The direct effect of this decision is that the applicant's conviction and sentence stand as determined by the Crown Court. The court found no procedural or legal error sufficient to render the conviction unsafe and no justification to extend the statutory time limits for appeal. The decision does not establish new precedent beyond affirming the application of established principles regarding character directions and extension of time in appeals.