Woroniecki, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was convicted on 11 August 2023 at Cambridge Crown Court of multiple offences including two counts of rape, controlling or coercive behaviour, intentional suffocation, and assault. The offences arose from incidents involving the Applicant and the Complainant, who had been in a relationship since 2021. The Complainant alleged that the Applicant was controlling and coercive, restricting her movements and access to money and communication. Specific incidents include physical assaults, sexual violence including rape and suffocation, and threats made during the Applicant’s custody. The Applicant denied the allegations, claiming all sexual activity was consensual and that any injuries were in self-defence. The jury rejected the Applicant’s account and convicted him on all counts.

The Applicant subsequently sought an extension of time to renew his applications for leave to appeal against conviction, which had previously been refused by a single judge. The court accepted that delay in filing was partly due to the Applicant’s limited English proficiency and difficulties in submitting the necessary forms. However, the application to extend time was ultimately refused.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant should be granted an extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against conviction.
2. Whether there is an arguable ground for appeal based on new evidence allegedly arising from family court proceedings.
3. Whether other grounds raised by the Applicant, including physical impossibility of the alleged attacks and alternative perpetrator allegations, constitute arguable grounds of appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that the Complainant admitted in family court to taking money from his bank account and to excessive alcohol consumption, facts which were denied at trial and which purportedly undermine the safety of the conviction.
• The Applicant asserted that he was not physically capable of committing the assaults due to health issues, which he claimed were not presented to the jury.
• The Applicant alleged that another individual, identified as "A," was responsible for the violence and rape, and suggested the judge should have interviewed the Complainant and A during the trial.
• The Applicant cited procedural difficulties in filing his appeal due to language barriers and confusion over who was responsible for submitting the Notice of Appeal.

Court's Response to Applicant's Arguments

• The court found that the issue of the Complainant taking money was fully before the jury, with bank records and trial evidence addressing this point.
• The Complainant’s alcohol consumption was also supported by forensic evidence and was properly presented to the jury.
• The purported new evidence from family court proceedings was therefore not new and would not have affected the jury’s verdict.
• The Applicant’s health-related argument was considered not arguable, as he could have raised these issues during his testimony and no significant health concerns were noted in the pre-sentence report.
• The allegation that another person committed the offences was not supported by evidence, was not raised at trial, and the judge was not required to call or interview witnesses independently.
• The delay in filing the appeal was not justified as a good reason for the 232-day extension requested.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the statutory provisions relating to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 regarding non-identification of victims. It acknowledged the Applicant’s language difficulties and the delay in filing the appeal documents but found no sufficient justification for extending the time by 232 days.

On the merits, the court reviewed the new evidence purportedly arising from family court proceedings and concluded it was not genuinely new, as the relevant matters had already been fully explored and presented at trial. The court emphasized that the jury had access to all pertinent evidence, including financial records and forensic data concerning the Complainant’s alcohol consumption.

The court evaluated other grounds raised by the Applicant, including physical impossibility and alternative perpetrator claims, and found these to be unarguable. The Applicant had the opportunity to present health issues at trial but did not do so effectively, and the alternative perpetrator claim was unsupported and procedurally improper.

Accordingly, the court agreed with the single judge’s refusal to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the renewed application.

Holding and Implications

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

The direct effect is that the Applicant’s conviction stands and no appeal will proceed. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but confirms the court’s approach to extension of time applications and the assessment of purported new evidence in appeals against conviction.