Summary of Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

On 5 August 2023 between approximately 19:00 and 19:30 there was a road traffic collision on [Road] near the junction with [Street]. The Appellant was driving a vehicle intending to turn right into [Street]. Two motorcyclists (referred to below as Witness A and Witness B) were travelling in the opposite direction. The prosecution alleged the Appellant pulled across their path, colliding first with Witness A and then with Witness B, causing injury to Witness A. Witness C, driving one car behind the Appellant, and Officer A gave evidence as to the Appellant's comments at the scene attributing difficulty to glare from the sun.

The Appellant was convicted on 4 January 2024 at the Crown Court before Judge Enright of one count of causing serious injury by careless driving contrary to s2C of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Appellant sought an extension of time to renew an application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction after a single judge refused an earlier extension application. This opinion records the Court of Appeal's decision on that renewal application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether to grant an extension of time to renew the Appellant's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction.
2. Whether the grounds advanced by the Appellant (ineffective assistance of counsel; improper representations; insufficiency of evidence; incomplete/incorrect jury directions) disclose a realistic prospect that the conviction is unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Four principal grounds of appeal were advanced: ineffective assistance of counsel; improper representations; insufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict; and incomplete or incorrect jury instructions.
• Application to call fresh evidence: various documents and testimony from an unknown local resident said to have spoken to the Appellant after the collision (the Appellant did not know the person's name).
• Additional submissions on renewal included accident data for the locality, criticism that lawyers and the prosecution assumed guilt and did not investigate possible excessive speed by the motorcyclists, and reliance on the Appellant's good character and driving experience.

Prosecution / Single Judge's Position (summarised)

• The prosecution case was described as straightforward and compelling: the Appellant turned into the path of two motorcyclists who had the right of way.
• Evidence, including direct testimony from Witness A and Witness B and the Appellant's own comments at the scene, was said to have been fully tested at trial.
• The single judge considered that peripheral points did not reveal any realistic prospect of establishing the conviction was unsafe and therefore refused to extend time.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court agreed with the single judge's assessment and applied the following analysis:

• The central procedural question was whether there was any realistic prospect that the conviction could be shown to be unsafe such that an extension of time to seek leave to appeal should be granted. The court concluded there was not.
• The prosecution evidence was direct and compelling: Witness A and Witness B gave accounts of the collision and the Appellant made admissions or comments at the scene (as recorded by Witness B, Witness C and Officer A). The jury were entitled to infer from those accounts and from the Appellant's trial evidence.
• The Appellant had been properly represented at trial; the prosecution evidence had been tested in cross-examination. The issue of glare was raised at trial but, even if temporary visual impairment occurred, the Appellant should not have commenced the manoeuvre across the carriageway.
• The proposed fresh evidence (an unnamed local resident) lacked specificity and traceability; the single judge reasonably concluded it could not be relied upon. The court accepted that it was not proportionate to require the single judge or this court to address each peripheral point in detail when none demonstrated a realistic prospect of success.
• Specific procedural points raised (the presence of a police officer on the jury, acceptance of a majority verdict) were considered addressed correctly by the trial judge and did not amount to arguable grounds undermining safety of conviction.
• Additional statistical accident data and renewed submissions did not alter the core difficulty for the Appellant: the stark contrast between the prosecution's evidence and the Appellant's own account, which the jury were entitled to prefer.

Holding and Implications

The application for an extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant's request to extend time to pursue an appeal against conviction is dismissed and no extension is granted. The court indicated that there was no realistic prospect of showing the conviction to be unsafe on the grounds advanced. The opinion did not announce any new legal precedent; it affirmed the single judge's exercise of discretion in refusing an extension of time.