Onwubiko, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted on 12 May 2025 at the Crown Court at The City of five counts of sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and was sentenced on 13 May 2025 to two years' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. He sought renewal of leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by the Single Judge.

The complainant (referred to as "Complainant") and the Appellant both worked at a residential care home. The Complainant alleged that on 3 January 2024 the Appellant sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions (described in the opinion as incidents in the kitchen, repeated touching of bottom/inner thigh/vagina while she attended to residents, and an incident while changing bedding in a room). The Complainant reported the incidents to a colleague, her grandmother and the care-home manager; the manager confronted and removed the Appellant from the premises. The Complainant's father assaulted the Appellant and was later charged and pleaded guilty to that assault. The Appellant was arrested, medically examined, interviewed in the presence of a legal representative and denied the allegations, asserting any touching was accidental.

At trial the prosecution led evidence from the Complainant, her grandmother and the care-home manager; an exchange of text messages was before the jury by agreement. The Appellant gave evidence denying the offences and advancing a fabrication defence; the jury convicted.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction should be granted.
2. Whether any of the grounds advanced (including alleged memory impairment at interview, alleged false statement by the Complainant in separate proceedings, forensic evidence issues, alleged undisclosed CCTV, inconsistencies in accounts, and alleged misrepresentation in the pre-sentence report) rendered the convictions arguably unsafe.
3. Whether a late assertion of mistaken identity (identifying another care worker as the possible assailant) raised an arguable basis for appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant advanced a fabrication defence at trial and later, in renewed grounds, asserted multiple matters including memory loss affecting interview answers, that the Complainant made a false statement in separate proceedings, that forensic evidence excluded the Appellant and that the judge misdirected the jury about forensic evidence, absence of CCTV, inconsistencies in the Complainant's accounts, and that the pre-sentence report misrepresented his views.
• In later submissions the Appellant asserted mistaken identity, suggesting another care worker might have been the assailant.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent submitted that all grounds lacked merit and were unarguable: the Appellant had been medically examined and legally represented at interview; alleged inconsistencies and messages were before the jury; forensic matters were agreed facts and properly explained to the jury; there was no CCTV by agreement; and issues of identification and alleged inconsistencies were for the jury to resolve.
• The Respondent maintained that the evidence supported identification of the Appellant, including direct identification by the Complainant and admissions by the Appellant that he had been in the kitchen and bedroom areas and may have touched the Complainant accidentally.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the multiple grounds advanced and the single judge's prior refusal. It considered each ground briefly against the trial record and law governing appeals from jury verdicts. The court reiterated the principle that a conviction after a fair trial is final unless there was an error of law or a material irregularity sufficiently capable of rendering the conviction arguably unsafe.

The court found:

• Medical examination and legal representation at interview undermined the complaint of incapacity to answer; the Appellant answered questions in full.
• Allegations that the Complainant made a false statement in separate proceedings had been before the jury and she was cross-examined on them.
• Forensic evidence had been the subject of agreed facts; the judge accurately reminded the jury of its limitations.
• Messages and alleged inconsistencies were before the jury and properly addressed in summing-up; their significance was a matter for the jury.
• The absence of CCTV was an agreed fact and thus not a basis for appeal.
• Late assertions of mistaken identity relied on evidence available at trial and could and should have been advanced and tested at trial; the evidence included direct identification by the Complainant and the Appellant's own admissions that placed him in relevant locations, such that the mistaken-identity submissions did not raise an arguable case.
• Overall there was no error of law, the summing-up was fair and balanced, and nothing rendered the convictions unsafe.

Holding and Implications

RENEWED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS REFUSED.

Implications: The convictions and sentence remain in force. The court recorded that no error of law or material irregularity was shown and did not establish any new precedent; the decision disposes of the Appellant's renewed application and leaves the jury verdicts intact.