Judgment Summary (Anonymised)

Factual and Procedural Background

This summary is drawn only from the provided opinion and replaces all personal identifiers with generic placeholders.

The matter concerns a renewed application by the Appellant for leave to appeal against conviction following a refusal by the single judge. A 73-page document in eleven sections was filed by the Appellant shortly before the hearing, setting out arguments in support of the renewed application. The Appellant had been convicted on 16 January 2024 at the Crown Court at The City on two counts of theft contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. The charges related to money that the Appellant had been holding in an account for a friend, the Complainant, who had received a substantial bequest and did not have a bank account. The transfers in dispute were said by the prosecution to be either loans to third parties or payments to the Appellant as reimbursements. The Appellant's defence was that the Complainant had consented to the transfers; the jury rejected that defence and convicted.

Prior to the substantive hearing, the Appellant applied for a confidentiality order in respect of the newly-filed written material; that application was refused. At the hearing the court (panel including Judge Warby and Judge Lavender) granted an extension of time for the renewed appeal application by two days, but ultimately refused leave to appeal, concluding that there were no arguable grounds that the convictions were unsafe. The single judge's written reasons were considered and appended to the transcript of the judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a confidentiality order should be granted in respect of the Appellant's late-filed written submissions, balancing the principle of open justice against any asserted risk of harm or prejudice.
2. Whether an extension of time should be granted to permit the Appellant to pursue a renewed application for leave to appeal.
3. Whether the Appellant should be granted leave to appeal against conviction on the basis that the convictions are unsafe, having regard to the grounds advanced by the Appellant (as set out in seven discrete grounds).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant submitted a 73-page document setting out renewed grounds for leave to appeal and sought confidential treatment of at least parts of those written submissions.
• Ground 1: Allegation that the Officer in Case (OIC) committed perjury by denying receipt of an email dated 11 December 2017; the Appellant relied on the email as an explanation of the funds and asserts that other material demonstrates the OIC used the email address in question.
• Ground 2: Allegation that the Complainant lied in evidence about suffering chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), his benefit claims, and his lifestyle; the Appellant says she supplied evidence which was not properly deployed by her legal team.
• Ground 3: Complaint that the prosecution withheld documents (relating to the Complainant's dealings with the State benefits agency) or removed them from the main bundle without consent and that defence counsel failed to present them when discovered.
• Ground 4: Allegation of jury tampering/suspect contact because a juror reported seeing the Complainant outside The University during the trial.
• Ground 5: Complaints about the Appellant's legal representatives, including an allegation they showed forged documents concerning a transfer of instructions and made strategic errors.
• Ground 6: Complaint that the Complainant's assertions of memory loss were unsupported by medical evidence and that counsel failed to obtain expert evidence or adequately challenge this.
• Ground 7: Complaint that reasonable adjustments for the Appellant's severe dyslexia were not made at trial (request for an "assisted person" or intermediary) and that the Appellant was disadvantaged as a result; a dyslexia consultant's report dated 10 May 2024 was relied on as proposed fresh evidence.
• The Appellant also sought to rely on what was described as fresh evidence about interactions between trial counsel and an "appointed advocate".

Respondent's and Court-Reported Counter-Arguments

• The court and trial counsel explained that the disclosure and matrix of evidence at trial addressed many of the points the Appellant now raises.
• In relation to the email dispute (Ground 1), trial counsel and the record showed the Appellant was able to put the disputed email into evidence and the OIC was recalled; the court recorded that the jury heard the competing accounts and was able to resolve any factual dispute.
• In relation to the Complainant's diagnosis of CFS (Ground 2), trial disclosure included a GP's letter establishing the diagnosis and counsel had explored those points at pre-trial and at trial; certain documentary material did not substantiate the Appellant's contentions.
• On the alleged withholding of material (Ground 3), the court noted that prior disclosure had dealt with the relevant issues about benefits and that the jury was able to consider matters of credibility through cross-examination and the Appellant's own evidence.
• Regarding the alleged juror contact (Ground 4), the court record showed the juror had proactively notified the court of having seen the Complainant, with no interaction or recognition; the trial judge and parties considered there was no cause for concern.
• On complaints about legal representatives (Ground 5), the available material indicated counsel had engaged with the Appellant, attended pre-trial reviews and sought documents; the court found no identified failings that would render the convictions unsafe.
• Concerning memory loss and medical evidence (Ground 6), a GP's letter confirming the Complainant's CFS was in disclosure and the jury heard robust cross-examination about inconsistencies and memory issues.
• On reasonable adjustments for dyslexia (Ground 7), the court log showed discussions and that the Appellant was afforded breaks during evidence in line with the Equal Treatment Bench Book guidance; the judge and counsel took steps to identify adjustments and the court concluded the Appellant was not prejudiced.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Tickle v BBC	Explanation and application of the common law principle of open justice.	The decision was relied on to refuse the Appellant's application for a confidentiality order over written submissions, as the court was not satisfied that any risk of harm or prejudice outweighed the importance of open justice.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in two related strands: (A) a preliminary consideration of the Appellant's application for a confidentiality order in respect of the late-filed material, and (B) the substantive consideration of the renewed application for extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction.

A. Confidentiality Application

The panel (including Judge Warby) applied the open justice principle, as explained in recent Civil Division authority including Tickle v BBC. The court concluded there was no sufficiently weighty risk of harm or prejudice to justify displacing open justice. Some material described as sensitive was already partially in the public domain by virtue of trial events; the court further observed that any residual risk of third-party access to documents on the court file is constrained by the Criminal Procedure Rules (notably rules cited as 5.7 and 5.8). On that basis, the confidentiality application was refused.

B. Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Judge Lavender granted an extension of time of two days on the basis that a good reason for a short extension had been supplied. The court nonetheless conducted a merits assessment of the proposed grounds of appeal and the accompanying documentary material (including the late 73-page document). The court confirmed it had read and considered the material but concluded that the single judge had been correct to refuse leave to appeal; no arguable basis was identified on which the convictions could be said to be unsafe.

Step-by-step treatment of the Appellant's grounds

• Ground 1 (alleged perjury by OIC): The court identified this as an evidential dispute about whether the OIC received an email of 11 December 2017. The OIC denied receipt and explained she used a different email address; the Appellant produced pdf versions of emails and has referred the matter to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The court found that demonstrating inconsistent email addresses or providing pdfs would not, at this stage, be sufficient to show perjury or to render the verdicts unsafe. The Appellant had been able to put the email into evidence and the jury had the competing accounts to resolve.
• Ground 2 (Complainant lied about CFS, benefits and lifestyle): The court noted that a GP's letter establishing a diagnosis of CFS had been disclosed and that trial counsel had explored the issue at pre-trial and in cross-examination. Some of the documentary material the Appellant relied upon did not substantiate the points pressed. The court concluded that the jury had been able to assess credibility and that these points did not give rise to an arguable basis for unsafe conviction.
• Ground 3 (withheld evidence relating to benefits): The court observed uncertainty as to which specific documents were alleged to have been withheld and noted that prior disclosure had addressed the relevant issues about benefit entitlement. The jury had heard cross-examination and the Appellant's evidence on these matters; no arguable prejudice was identified.
• Ground 4 (alleged jury tampering): The court examined the jury note and court log: a juror reported seeing the Complainant filming near The University (or RSA). There was no interaction or recognition; the juror brought it to the court's attention and the parties were content that there was nothing to be concerned about. The court found no basis for an allegation of tampering.
• Ground 5 (complaints about legal representatives): The court reviewed correspondence and attendance records and found that counsel attended pre-trial reviews, engaged with the Appellant, and sought documents. The areas of disagreement were largely strategic choices by counsel to avoid undermining credibility or inviting bad-character evidence. The court found no failings identified that would render the convictions unsafe.
• Ground 6 (Complainant's memory loss and lack of expert evidence): The court noted medical evidence (a GP's letter confirming CFS) was in disclosure and that the jury heard robust cross-examination on inconsistencies. The court saw no basis for concluding an absence of expert evidence rendered the convictions unsafe.
• Ground 7 (reasonable adjustments for dyslexia): The court checked the trial record and found that adjustments were discussed and that the Appellant was allowed breaks during evidence. Counsel took instructions about the adjustments and the judge implemented an adjustment (breaks). The court was not persuaded an intermediary was required, and the Appellant's experienced legal team considered her able to participate. The proposed fresh evidence about dyslexia did not establish prejudice at trial.

After assessing each ground individually and then considering the overall picture, the court concluded there was no realistic prospect that the proposed appeal would succeed or that the convictions were unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The court made the following dispositive rulings:

• Confidentiality application refused. The court refused to make a confidentiality order over the Appellant's late-filed written material, applying the open justice principle (as discussed in Tickle v BBC) and finding no sufficient risk of harm or prejudice to justify secrecy.
• Short extension of time granted. The court granted an extension of time of two days for the Appellant to pursue the renewed application for leave to appeal.
• Leave to appeal refused — convictions upheld. The court refused the Appellant's renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, concluding the single judge had been correct and that there were no arguable grounds that the convictions were unsafe.

Implications:

• The direct practical consequence is that the Appellant's convictions remain in place and the renewed attempt to obtain leave to appeal has been refused; the Appellant's sentence (two years' imprisonment suspended for 18 months as recorded in the single judge's reasons) stands subject to any other procedural remedies not addressed in this opinion.
• No new legal principle or binding precedent was established by the court's decision; the court applied established principles (notably open justice) and assessed the merits of the Appellant's grounds against the trial record and disclosure. The refusal of the confidentiality order and the refusal of leave to appeal are determinations of fact and discretion made on the material before the court in this case.

---

Note: This summary is strictly confined to the content of the provided opinion and anonymises all personal identifiers in accordance with the instructions. No information not contained in the opinion has been added or inferred.