APZ, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant was convicted on 14 October 2022 at the Crown Court at Woolwich of the oral rape of his second son (Complainant 1), a child under 13, for offences committed between March 2012 and March 2014. The jury was unable to reach a verdict regarding the oral rape allegation involving his youngest son (Complainant 2), also under 13, and the prosecution subsequently withdrew the retrial request, resulting in a not guilty verdict on that count. The applicant was sentenced on 18 November 2022 to a Special Custodial Sentence of 14 years, comprising 13 years imprisonment and 1 year extended licence. The applicant seeks an extension of time of 375 days and leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by a single judge.

The allegations arose after the applicant's sons disclosed abuse to their mother during a family visit in 2019. Complainant 1 described oral rape incidents occurring at their home when he was around four years old. Complainant 2 also disclosed similar abuse. The applicant denied the allegations, asserting fabrication by the complainants' mother and suggesting an alternative perpetrator, referred to as "Uncle Charles," who was the mother's partner. The mother denied coaching her sons. The applicant contends the convictions are unsafe due to misrepresentation of his defence and admission of prejudicial evidence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the convictions are unsafe given the absence of corroborating evidence and alleged misrepresentation of the defence case.
2. Whether trial counsel was incompetent in their handling of evidential matters and cross-examinations.
3. Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The convictions are unsafe due to lack of corroborating evidence and the jury hearing irrelevant or prejudicial material.
• Trial counsel misrepresented the defence case, particularly in cross-examination of Complainant 1 and the complainant's mother.
• Evidence relating to the applicant's prior caution for domestic abuse and complaints made in 2016 was improperly admitted or handled.
• The exclusion of evidence and cross-examination regarding "Uncle Charles" as a possible alternative abuser was unfair.
• Criticism of trial counsel's treatment of evidence from the eldest son, Child A.
• Seeks an extension of time of 375 days and leave to appeal against conviction.

Respondent's Arguments

• The admission of the applicant's caution was on the applicant's own instruction against counsel's advice, negating claims of error.
• Cross-examination of Complainant 1 was conducted with the applicant's approval and according to ground rules to protect the child’s welfare.
• Decisions about cross-examination of the complainant's mother and treatment of 2016 complaints were tactical decisions by trial counsel.
• The judge properly excluded evidence regarding "Uncle Charles" on hearsay and relevance grounds; no criticism is made of the judge's rulings.
• Overall, no identifiable errors or irregularities at trial rendered the convictions unsafe.
• The delay in seeking leave to appeal is not sufficiently justified, and it is not in the interests of justice to extend time.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the applicant's grounds of appeal and the five evidential matters raised. It found that the admission of the applicant’s caution for domestic abuse was made on his explicit instruction against legal advice, negating any claim of error. The cross-examination of Complainant 1 was carefully managed to protect the child’s welfare and was approved by the applicant. Tactical decisions by trial counsel regarding the complainant's mother and prior complaints were reasonable and within professional judgment. The exclusion of evidence relating to "Uncle Charles" was a judicial ruling based on hearsay and relevance, not challenged by the applicant.

The court noted that the jury was appropriately directed and distinguished between counts involving the two complainants, reflecting discernment in their verdicts. The applicant's delay in seeking leave to appeal was explained but found insufficient to justify the lengthy extension sought. Since the court found no reasonable argument that the conviction was unsafe, it concluded it was not in the interests of justice to grant the extension or leave to appeal.

Holding and Implications

The applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction are REFUSED.

The direct effect of this decision is that the applicant’s conviction and sentence stand as decided by the Crown Court. No new precedent is established, and the ruling confirms the appropriateness of the trial judge’s directions, the jury’s verdict, and trial counsel’s conduct within the scope of professional judgment.