Wills v Rex

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, aged 40 at the time, was convicted on 17 March 2022 by HH Judge Townsend and a jury in the Crown Court at Taunton for assaulting an emergency worker on 20 January 2021. The assault involved pushing Crime Scene Investigator Smith outside Street Police Station, Somerset. The Applicant was sentenced on 16 June 2022 to a 12-month community order. The offence constituted a breach of a prior 12-month conditional discharge imposed by Somerset Magistrates Court in January 2020. A related charge of intentional harassment under the Public Order Act 1986 was dismissed. The Applicant was unrepresented at trial and sentence.

The Applicant subsequently applied to renew his appeal against conviction, seek an extension of time for the appeal, and request further evidence. An initial hearing on 10 July 2023 proceeded without the Applicant, resulting in a judgment. Upon learning that the Applicant was present, the Court revoked the judgment and allowed oral submissions. The Court reserved judgment, which is the subject of this opinion.

The prosecution case was supported by body-worn footage showing interactions between the Applicant and Police Community Support Officer Cave and later Crime Scene Investigator Smith. The Applicant admitted pushing Smith but claimed self-defence. The jury was tasked with determining the lawfulness of the Applicant’s actions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to appeal against conviction despite the delay in filing the appeal.
2. Whether the Applicant’s grounds of appeal, including the non-calling of PCSO Cave and alleged distress affecting his human rights, provide a basis for a successful appeal.
3. Whether further evidence should be admitted and witnesses called in support of the appeal.
4. Whether an extension of time to file the appeal should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• PCSO Cave was not called at trial despite her involvement and presence on body-worn footage; her evidence was necessary.
• The Applicant experienced distress contributing to contraventions of his human rights, including issues related to housing, driving, consumer rights, welfare, employment, identity, health and safety, and humanity.
• The attitude of officers at the police station exacerbated the Applicant’s distress, which was relevant to his behaviour on 20 January 2021.
• Requests for further evidence and witness statements from several named individuals related to earlier events were made to support the appeal.
• The Applicant referenced ongoing civil cases and mental health symptoms as context for his actions and delays.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution did not need to call PCSO Cave because her body-worn video was available and her statement was not necessary to prove the case.
• The Applicant did not request an adjournment or any alternative means to admit PCSO Cave’s evidence.
• The grounds concerning distress and human rights issues were irrelevant to the defence of self-defence for the assault charge.
• There was no compelling reason to extend time or admit further evidence as the conviction was safe and the appeal had no prospect of success.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully considered the Applicant’s submissions and the material before it, including the written grounds of appeal and oral arguments. It treated the application as if it had been made in time. The Court found that the trial judge conducted the trial fairly, allowing the Applicant to explain his background and frustrations with the police. The judge properly directed the jury on the law of self-defence, emphasizing that feelings of grievance or provocation do not justify the use of force.

The Court concluded that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, supported by body-worn footage and the evidence of CSI Smith. The non-calling of PCSO Cave did not render the conviction unsafe, as the prosecution’s case was sufficiently established without her oral evidence. The Applicant had not sought an adjournment to call her evidence.

The Court found that the Applicant’s grounds relating to distress and human rights issues were irrelevant to the defence of self-defence and did not provide a lawful excuse for the assault. The jury was entitled to reject the self-defence claim. The Court saw no other viable defence arising from the grounds raised.

The Court also rejected the application to admit further evidence, finding no indication that such evidence would affect the safety of the conviction or provide a lawful defence. The application to extend time was denied due to the absence of an arguable appeal and inadequate explanation for the delay, including the Applicant prioritising civil disputes.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision is DISMISSED the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction, refused the extension of time for filing the appeal, and declined to admit further evidence.

The direct effect is that the Applicant’s conviction and sentence remain affirmed. The Court found no error of principle or procedural unfairness warranting a full appeal. No new legal precedent was established by this decision. The ruling underscores the principle that personal grievances and distress, however significant, do not constitute a defence to assault, particularly against emergency workers, absent lawful justification such as self-defence properly established.