Pearce, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant stood trial at Newport Crown Court from 27 February to 2 March 2023, charged with aggravated vehicle taking (to which he pleaded guilty before trial), two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and one count of dangerous driving. The assaults involved two injured persons, identified as partners, and the Appellant was acquitted of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. The convictions were entered on 2 March 2023. The Appellant renewed an application for leave to appeal against convictions on the assault and dangerous driving counts after initial refusal by a single judge.

The prosecution case detailed that on 28 June 2022, the Appellant and a co-accused unlawfully entered a residence and stole keys to a vehicle, which the Appellant then used to start and drive the car away with the co-accused as passenger. The vehicle owners, present at the scene, attempted to stop the car. Evidence described the Appellant accelerating and swerving to dislodge one owner who was holding onto the car, resulting in injuries requiring hospital treatment. The vehicle was later abandoned with damage.

The Appellant's defence was that he found the vehicle with the door open and keys on the dashboard, intended to return the keys after identifying the owners, but drove off after being punched by one owner, fearing for his safety. He denied awareness that the owners were holding onto the vehicle during his driving.

At trial, witness evidence supported the prosecution's account, while the Appellant maintained his version. The jury convicted on the counts as charged. The Appellant sought leave to appeal, initially on the ground of failure to direct the jury on duress, and subsequently on multiple grounds including witness credibility, late disclosure, and alleged inadequate representation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the defence of duress.
2. Whether the Appellant's grounds of appeal relating to witness credibility and alleged perjury have merit.
3. Whether late disclosure of evidence affected the fairness of the trial.
4. Whether the Appellant received inadequate legal representation.
5. Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge failed to provide a jury direction on the defence of duress despite evidence suggesting the Appellant acted under threat after being punched.
• Witnesses gave false and inconsistent evidence, with allegations of perjury and discrepancies in their accounts.
• There was late disclosure of key evidence, including video footage, which prejudiced the defence.
• The prosecution made exaggerated submissions regarding the injuries sustained by one injured party.
• Legal representation was inadequate, with counsel allegedly biased towards conviction.
• Fresh evidence from multiple witnesses, including solicitors, counsel, police officers, and others, should be admitted to support the appeal.

Respondent's Arguments

• The defence did not raise duress sufficiently at trial to require a jury direction, and the judge was correct in not directing on it as no reasonable jury could accept it.
• Discrepancies in witness evidence were matters for the jury; no evidence of perjury was established.
• Late disclosure was not material to the trial's outcome and was properly managed.
• The prosecution's submissions were appropriate and did not undermine trial fairness.
• The Appellant's complaints about representation lacked specific examples and merit.
• Fresh evidence applications lacked specificity and did not relate to core trial issues, thus were not necessary or expedient in the interests of justice.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the Appellant's grounds of appeal focusing primarily on the defence of duress. It reiterated the legal requirements for this defence, emphasizing that it must be raised by the defence and that a jury direction is only necessary if a properly directed jury could find it applicable. The court found that the Appellant's own case demonstrated alternative options were available, such as locking the car door, and thus no reasonable jury could conclude duress applied.

Regarding witness credibility, the court noted that discrepancies and allegations of perjury were appropriately dealt with at trial through cross-examination and jury assessment. The court found no evidence supporting perjury claims.

The court addressed complaints about late disclosure and found that any late evidence was not material to the central issues and was managed properly. The court dismissed claims about inadequate representation due to lack of specific examples.

On fresh evidence, the court noted the Appellant identified numerous potential witnesses but failed to specify the evidence they would provide. Many proposed witnesses related to trial conduct or peripheral issues, which the court determined were neither necessary nor expedient to admit on appeal.

In sum, the court concluded there were no arguable grounds with real prospects of success and refused leave to appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL against the convictions on the assault and dangerous driving counts.

This decision upheld the trial court's verdicts, confirming that the defence of duress was not applicable and that the Appellant's other grounds lacked merit. The refusal to admit fresh evidence maintained the integrity of the original trial process. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily affected the parties by finalizing the Appellant’s convictions and denying further appellate review.