Anonymized Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by the Appellant who was convicted, by a majority of ten to two, of murder on 22 August 2023 at The Court before Judge Marks. The Appellant was aged 23 at the time of conviction. He applied for leave to appeal that conviction; leave was refused by a single judge. The Appellant seeks an extension of time (about 29 days) in which to renew his application for leave to appeal against conviction and renews that application.

Factual summary derived from the trial evidence (as set out in the opinion): On 29 May 2021 the Victim was stabbed in the back following an encounter with the Appellant on a street in The City. The Victim collapsed and died a short distance away. The Appellant and the Victim were known to each other; the Victim had previously had a relationship with the Appellant's mother. The Appellant's mother had committed suicide earlier in April 2021 and had a history of severe mental-health problems; the Appellant had acted as her carer. The parties met on a number of occasions following the mother's death. On the day of the killing there were a sequence of interactions captured in CCTV and described by witnesses: an initial short physical altercation, a period during which there was a 28‑second CCTV gap (agreed by parties to be the period in which the fatal injury was inflicted), and an encounter shortly afterwards when a witness saw the Appellant approach the Victim from behind and strike the left side of the Victim's back.

The prosecution asserted that the Appellant carried a knife concealed on his person and deliberately stabbed the Victim in the back during the period out of view of CCTV. The defence case was that the Victim was the aggressor and had a knife; the Appellant acted in lawful self-defence or in the course of struggling to disarm the Victim. The Appellant handed himself in to The Police Station on 1 June 2021. The knife was not recovered by police.

At trial the prosecution called, among other evidence, CCTV evidence (with a 28‑second gap), eyewitness evidence from Witness Jonston, witness evidence about the Victim's working tools (Witness Singer), and expert pathology evidence from the Pathologist who explained that the cause of death was a single stab wound but who could not say which party was in which relative position at the moment the wound was inflicted. The Appellant gave evidence describing a struggle in which he said he tried to wrest the knife away, that his punch was a stabbing motion and that he did not intend to kill the Victim. The jury were directed on issues including whether the knife was produced by the Appellant or the Victim and, if by the Appellant, whether the Appellant honestly and reasonably believed force was necessary.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should grant an extension of time (approximately 29 days) for the Appellant to apply for leave to appeal against conviction.
2. Whether there are arguable grounds of appeal sufficient to justify granting leave to appeal, specifically in relation to: (a) the judge's admission and treatment of an unsigned or draft defence statement; (b) the judge's remarks to the jury about appellate correction of legal error; (c) alleged imbalance or unfairness in the judge's summing-up (including treatment of pathology evidence and the defence statement); and (d) the non-disclosure to the parties of jury "numbers notes".

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erroneously permitted reliance on a draft defence statement that the Appellant had not fully accepted or signed, and then placed undue emphasis on that draft in the summing-up.
• The judge was wrong to tell the jury that a higher court would correct any legal error, thereby potentially diminishing the jury's sense of responsibility.
• The summing-up was imbalanced in favour of the prosecution, introduced new points not argued by parties, and otherwise unfairly presented the case against the Appellant.
• The judge incorrectly presented pathological evidence and mischaracterised the Appellant's position regarding pathology and the defence statement.
• The judge erred by not providing parties with copies of all jury notes, specifically a "numbers note", which the Appellant contends undermines open justice and fairness.

Respondent / Prosecution (as represented in the court's treatment)

• The prosecution accepted that the defence statement had been drafted and lodged by the Appellant's solicitors but contended that the document was before the court; it was open to the jury to decide what weight to give it, having been addressed in cross‑examination and by judge's directions.
• The prosecution relied on the evidence of witnesses (including Witness Jonston and the Pathologist) and on the absence of new or prejudicial rulings in the summing-up to support the safety of the conviction.
• The prosecution maintained that established practice and law (including the statutory framework governing jury deliberations) justified the judge's handling of the numbers note and the content of the summing-up.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed the Appellant's application in a sequence reflecting procedural and substantive concerns. The analysis can be divided into discrete themes:

Delay and Extension of Time

The court accepted the Appellant's explanation for the modest delay in lodging grounds of appeal (about 29 days) and noted that a modest delay would not be decisive if the grounds had substantive merit. However, the court proceeded to examine the substantive merits and the arguability of the grounds.

Defence Statement: Authority, Admission and Directions

The court considered the fact that the defence statement had been lodged on the Digital Case System some 20 months before trial. The Appellant contested parts of that document at trial, saying it was an unsigned draft submitted contrary to his instructions. The court observed section 6E of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which provides that where an accused's solicitor purports to give a defence statement on behalf of the accused, the statement shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed given with the accused's authority. The court treated section 6E as a "complete answer" to the suggestion that the judge should have required proof that the Appellant had fully approved the statement before it was adduced.

The court noted that the judge had given detailed written directions to the jury about the defence statement, including that the jury could accept the Appellant's explanation for differences between his oral evidence and the statement, or treat the statement adversely if there was no adequate explanation. The court concluded that the directions were "overly generous to the Appellant" but lawful and afforded the Appellant protection; other judges might have handled the detail differently, but no unfairness of sufficient gravity was shown.

Alleged Improper Comment About Appellate Correction

The court addressed the Appellant's complaint about a passing remark by the trial judge that "a higher court would correct" any legal error. The court held that the remark was true and could not reasonably be seen to lessen the jury's responsibility. The court saw no basis to treat the comment as improper or as making the conviction unsafe.

Summing-up — Balance, Pathology and Witness Evidence

Using Marchant as guidance, the court examined the summing-up for impartiality and whether the judge had improperly intruded on the jury's role. The judge had highlighted the 28‑second CCTV gap and asked rhetorically whether a fight as described by the Appellant could have occurred in that short period. The court acknowledged this was a question that might not assist the defence but concluded, in context, it did not render the summing-up unfair.

On Witness Jonston, the judge both stressed the witness’s potential importance and identified evidential weaknesses (imperfect vision, drug use, delay in coming forward). The court held that the judge was entitled to identify the significance of that witness and to point to potential reliability issues; that approach did not amount to unfairness.

Concerning pathology, the court accepted that the judge had at one point misstated how the pathology evidence was relied upon but had corrected the mistake. The court found no arguable basis for appellate intervention given that the jury heard the defence closing speech, the judge later identified the defence submissions correctly, and no one is entitled to a trial judge repeating every argument verbatim in summing-up.

Jury "Numbers Note" and Confidentiality of Deliberations

The Appellant argued it was improper for the trial judge not to supply counsel with the full jury note that included voting figures (a "numbers note"). The court undertook statutory and common-law analysis. It reviewed the Juries Act 1974, particularly section 20D (criminalising disclosure of information about statements, opinions, arguments or votes cast by jurors during deliberations), and section 20E (exceptions, including disclosure for enabling a jury to arrive at a verdict or in connection with delivery of that verdict). The court also relied on long-established practice described in Gorman

The court concluded that there are strong reasons for protecting deliberative confidentiality (to permit honest discussion without fear of external scrutiny) and that the statutory regime reflects and reinforces that policy. The exceptions in section 20E accommodate necessary communications to enable the jury to arrive at their verdict and to deal with delivery of the verdict (for example confirming whether a guilty verdict following a majority direction was unanimous or by majority). The court held that the current practice of not disclosing detailed voting figures in numbers notes to counsel is consistent with statute and precedent and that the Appellant had not advanced sufficient legal analysis to upset long-established practice. The court also rejected the Article 6 ECHR argument, noting that Article 6 guarantees a fair and public hearing and the public pronouncement of judgement, but it does not guarantee disclosure of judicial deliberations or jury deliberations.

Overall Assessment of Grounds

Weighing each ground, the court found no arguable basis on which an appeal could succeed. The defence statement issue was addressed by statute (section 6E CPIA); summing-up remarks fell within the permissible scope of judicial directions and review of evidence (per Marchant); the pathology and hand‑injury matters had been presented to the jury and did not reveal any material misdirection; and the non‑disclosure of detailed jury voting figures was consistent with established case law and the statutory protection of jury deliberations.

Holding and Implications

FINAL RULING: The application for an extension of time and the renewed application for leave to appeal are refused. The court concluded there are no arguable grounds of appeal that would render the conviction unsafe.

Implications:

• Direct effect: The Appellant's application for an extension of time and renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction were both refused; the conviction therefore stands for the purposes of the appeal process.
• Procedure and evidence: The decision affirms that (a) defence statements lodged by solicitors are, absent proof to the contrary, deemed given with authority under section 6E of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996; (b) trial judges retain scope to review and comment on evidence in a summing-up provided they do not usurp the jury's role or unfairly skew the review; and (c) established practice and statutory protections support the non‑disclosure of jury voting figures in jury notes (subject to narrow exceptions identified in the Juries Act 1974).
• Precedential note: The court did not identify any new legal principle or depart from existing authorities; the opinion applies established statutory provisions and case law (including Marchant and Gorman) to the facts before it and refuses the applications on that basis.

Additional Notes

This summary is strictly confined to the material and holdings contained in the provided opinion. No information has been added beyond what appears in the opinion. All personal names and identifying details have been replaced with consistent anonymized descriptors as required.