Hobbs, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion, delivered by Judge [Last Name], opens by noting that the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 anonymity provisions apply to the offences in this matter (prohibiting publication likely to identify the victim during the victim's lifetime, unless lifted under section 3 of the Act).

The Appellant was convicted on 29 July 2022 in the Crown Court in The City before Judge [Last Name] (trial judge) of one count of controlling and coercive behaviour, three counts of rape and one count of assault by penetration. The Appellant (then aged 38) was sentenced on 16 September 2022 to a total term of 10 years' imprisonment, comprising concurrent terms (2½ years for controlling and coercive behaviour; 10 years for each rape count; and 8 years for the assault by penetration). Prior to these convictions, following a welfare check on 28 April 2020 the Complainant reported an assault and the Appellant was arrested and subsequently convicted of assault in March 2021. During the subsequent investigation the Complainant made further allegations of controlling behaviour, rape and sexual assault. The defence at trial was that the sexual activity was consensual and that the complained-of violence and abuse had not occurred.

The Appellant brought a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, for bail and for a representation order. He also sought leave under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to adduce fresh evidence. The single judge (previously) refused relief and the Appellant renewed his applications before the court in this opinion.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether leave should be granted (and time extended) for the Appellant to appeal against conviction.
2. Whether bail and a representation order ought to be granted in relation to any renewed appeal.
3. Whether leave should be given under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to admit fresh evidence (including witness statements and video evidence).
4. Whether complaints about the adequacy of trial legal representation and potential jury contamination by local media are sufficient to render the conviction unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Complainant lied about the events; the Appellant was abused; the Complainant was not properly cross-examined at trial.
• The Appellant seeks to rely on fresh evidence from specific witnesses (identified in the papers) who would, he says, support his account (including evidence that the Complainant abused the Appellant and that a particular injury was not caused by the Appellant).
• A local media story published during the trial may have been seen by jurors and could have prejudiced the trial.
• Complaints about trial counsel and solicitors: that they withheld witness statements and video footage material to the defence, did not advance his case adequately, failed to go through agreed facts, and that counsel behaved in a volatile manner and did not follow the Appellant's instructions.

Court and Legal Representatives' Responses

• Trial counsel and the instructing solicitor responded in writing to the Appellant's criticisms; the Appellant waived privilege and the court considered those responses. Counsel said the Complainant was cross‑examined with the Appellant's permission (after the Appellant had been removed from court due to behaviour) and that appropriate warnings and advice were given.
• The instructing solicitor (Attorney Turner) confirmed an assessment that the Appellant presented as volatile and that counsel was always attended for safety and case‑management reasons; she "fully endorsed" counsel's written response.
• With respect to proposed fresh evidence, the previously considered position was that potential witnesses had not provided written statements for trial (one witness indicated he did not want to be involved) and no contemporaneous explanation was given for their absence; the fresh statements now provided were unsigned/undated or otherwise defective in form and were said to be inadmissible or not probative.
• The trial judge properly directed the jury on law and the duty to decide the case on the evidence; no misdirection attributable to the local media publication was identified.
• Counsel and the solicitor confirmed they acted on the Appellant's instructions and met with him on multiple occasions; the court record showed the Appellant was disruptive at times (including a panic attack and exclusion from court) and counsel's conduct was said to be consistent with acting in the Appellant's interests.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reaffirming the anonymity protection under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and then proceeded to consider each renewed ground and the application to adduce fresh evidence.

On the leave to appeal application the court reviewed the Appellant's proposed grounds (filed by the Appellant) and the supplemental letter dated 18 July 2024. The court examined the factual record and the written responses from former counsel and the instructing solicitor. The court assessed each ground as follows:

• Ground 1 (allegation that the Complainant lied and was not cross‑examined): the court noted the trial transcript and summing‑up contained numerous references to questions put to the Complainant and her answers. Counsel explained that, after the Appellant was removed from court for behaviour, counsel had permission to cross‑examine in the Appellant's absence and had advised the Appellant accordingly. The conflicting accounts were left to the jury. The court concluded the ground lacked merit.
• Ground 2 (fresh evidence from two witnesses): the single judge had found that one potential witness had been contacted by the prosecution prior to trial but declined to give a statement and another was not identified as a potential witness at trial. The court observed that, at the time of the single judge's decision, no written statements from those witnesses had been provided. The court did have later statements before it but found them unsigned/undated or otherwise deficient; the court characterised such material as inadmissible hearsay with no sufficient explanation why it could not have been obtained for trial and concluded the material did not provide admissible, probative evidence.
• Ground 3 (local media story): the court accepted the single judge's conclusion that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on relevant legal issues, including the duty to decide the case on the evidence, and that no misdirection had been shown.
• Ground 4 (complaints about legal representatives withholding material and failing to advance the case): the court relied on statements from counsel and the solicitor confirming the extent of preparation (including multiple pre‑trial meetings) and that they acted on instructions. The court also took account of the Appellant's disruptive conduct at trial (requiring removal on occasions) and concluded there was no basis to suggest the conviction was unsafe because of counsel's conduct or preclusion of material from the jury.
• Specific additional witnesses and items (witness statements, video/recordings): the court assessed each; unsigned/undated statements and material said to be outside the material time were treated as inadmissible or irrelevant and lacking probative value. The court concluded there was no substance in the proposed additional material capable of establishing a meritorious ground of appeal.

Overall, the court applied the established approach for renewed applications for leave to appeal and for admission of fresh evidence (requiring admissible, credible and materially relevant evidence and explanations for late production). On the facts and material before it the court found the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED.

Holding: The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction, for bail and for a representation order were dismissed. Leave to introduce the fresh evidence considered was refused.

Implications: The direct effect of the decision is the refusal of the renewed applications and refusal of leave to adduce the identified fresh evidence. The opinion records that the proposed appeal was not reasonably arguable. The court did not purport to establish any new legal principle; no precedential case law was cited or created in this opinion.