Factual and Procedural Background
Judge Bryan delivered this anonymised judgment. On 16 February 2023 at the Crown Court at Norwich before Judge Hardy and a jury, the Defendant (then aged 67) was unanimously convicted of eight counts of sexual assault (Sexual Offences Act 2003, Counts 1–6 and 11–12) and four counts of sexual activity with a child (Sexual Offences Act 2003, Counts 7–10). The Defendant ran a café in a Norfolk market town. The complainants were employees of the café (Complainant 1 to Complainant 6), mostly teenage girls or young women. The prosecution case described repeated inappropriate comments, texts, grooming behaviour and physical sexual touching by the Defendant; the defence denied most allegations, accepting only the incident concerning Complainant 6 (the Defendant accepted hugging and licking the ear but denied it was sexual).
The Recorder sentenced the Defendant immediately after conviction, imposing consecutive and concurrent terms across counts, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, restraining orders (for five years in respect of each complainant), and a financial surcharge. The overall custodial term was recorded in the judgment as five years and six months' imprisonment (66 months).
The Defendant applied for an extension of time (approximately 750 days) for leave to appeal against sentence and renewed an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against conviction. He also sought leave under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to adduce fresh evidence. The single judge referred the sentence extension application to the full court and granted a representation order for fresh counsel (Attorney Webb) to appear.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Defendant has shown good reason for an approximately 750‑day delay in seeking leave to appeal against conviction and/or sentence.
- Whether leave to appeal against conviction should be granted (i.e. whether the convictions are unsafe for the reasons advanced).
- Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted and, if so, whether the sentences (categorisation, individual terms, concurrency/consecutivity and totality) were manifestly excessive.
- Whether leave should be granted under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to adduce fresh evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The Recorder unfairly questioned a defence witness (KF) about safeguarding, prejudicing the jury.
- Defence witnesses were not permitted to give full evidence; inadequate conferences with witnesses by trial lawyers.
- No medical evidence was obtained to show physical incapacity to commit the offences (limited arm movement from a 2001 injury).
- No CCTV footage was used despite seizure; text evidence only disclosed at trial.
- Material requested at a pre‑trial hearing was not produced.
- Trial was rushed because judge and counsel were due to go on holiday; inadequate defence conferences.
- Complaints about trial representatives (solicitor and barrister) for alleged failings in preparation and evidence gathering.
- Against sentence: failure to take sufficient account of mitigation, disproportionate sentences (including that many offences did not merit upper‑end A3 sentences), and failure to apply or explain totality.
Prosecution's Arguments (Respondent's Notice / Grounds of Opposition)
- Questioning of KF about safeguarding was legitimate to challenge her evidence given she claimed safeguarding knowledge and the Defendant had sent a highly sexual text to that witness.
- The defence was permitted to put any material it wished before the jury; the defence called witnesses and the Defendant gave evidence.
- The defence considered but did not pursue a medical incapacity case; the Recorder referred to the Defendant's disability in summing‑up.
- No relevant CCTV footage was available despite seizure; the jury were informed.
- Disclosure provided by prosecution included material undermining a complainant (e.g. false statement about illness) and was explored at trial.
- No complaint about speed of trial was raised at trial; the Recorder emphasised to the jury they had all the time they needed.
- Even if defence conferences were limited, the Defendant did not explain how this rendered convictions unsafe; trial counsel and solicitors acted on instructions and performed appropriate work.
- No particulars identified explaining how the Recorder's conduct rendered the trial unfair; the summing‑up and directions were fair and balanced.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first considered whether good reason was shown for the delay in seeking leave. The Defendant relied on prior legal advice and lay persons; the court concluded no good reason was shown but, because the sentence application had been referred and arguable points existed, the court would consider both applications. The court treated the renewed conviction grounds as without merit and agreed with the single judge and the prosecution's responses.
On the conviction grounds the court addressed each complaint substantively and rejected them on the material before the court: the prosecution was entitled to challenge defence witness KF about safeguarding; the defendant had the opportunity to call and cross‑examine witnesses and to give evidence; no medical incapacity case had been advanced at trial and no evidence supported incapacity; there was no identified relevant CCTV footage for the defence to rely on; the Defendant had not specified material allegedly withheld or how it would have made convictions unsafe; and there was no evidence that the Recorder's conduct prejudiced the defence. The court emphasised that the Recorder gave a fair and balanced summing‑up in the context of a strong case from multiple complainants.
Regarding the sentence appeal the court found the grounds settled by fresh counsel to be arguable and therefore granted the extension of time and leave to appeal limited to those grounds. The court then analysed the sentencing grounds substantively. It accepted the Recorder's categorisation of each offence as A3 under the Sexual Offences Guideline for reasons stated in the trial judge's remarks: breach of trust and power as owner of the café, the youth of complainants, repeated conduct despite being told to desist, grooming behaviour, and others having warned the Defendant.
The court considered consecutivity appropriate between victims, subject to totality. The court rejected the submission that the three‑month sentence for pulling a ponytail (Count 6) was excessive in context. The court noted that although express reference to mitigation in sentencing would have been preferable, the Recorder had heard mitigation at trial and the Defendant was not of good character; the seriousness of repeated sexual offending reduced the weight to be attached to prior good conduct. On totality the court reviewed the applicable Totality Guideline principles (overall sentence must reflect total offending, harm and culpability, and be just and proportionate) and explained that it was not necessary to show arithmetic reductions; rather the sentencer must ensure the overall sentence is proportionate. The court concluded that, on the facts and having regard to aggravating and mitigating factors, the total sentence was just and proportionate.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction was refused; the extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence were granted for consideration but the substantive appeal against sentence was dismissed.
Implications: The convictions and the overall custodial sentence (five years and six months) remain in force. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order and five‑year restraining orders as imposed below remain in effect. The court did not set any novel legal precedent; it applied statutory provisions and sentencing guidelines (including the Totality Guideline and the Sexual Offences Guideline) to conclude the sentence was within the justified and proportionate range on the facts presented.