Simmons, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted of murder on 15 February 2024 at the Crown Court before Judge Lees and on 4 April 2024 was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 16 years less 398 days on remand. He applied for an extension of time (6 days) to renew an application for an extension of time (1 week) for leave to appeal against conviction.

The Victim lived in a self-contained flat that formed part of communal accommodation for individuals with complex needs and substance abuse. Three co-residents (Witness A, Witness B and Witness C) and the Victim were present. On 15 February 2023 the Appellant attended the flat; Witness A called emergency services. The Victim was discovered in cardiac arrest and later died at The Hospital. The Pathologist concluded cause of death was blunt force trauma to the torso (multiple rib fractures, ruptured spleen, deep internal chest bruising and internal bleeding), with injuries inconsistent with purely accidental causes and consistent with non-accidental force such as stamping.

The Appellant was arrested on 1 March 2023 and interviewed by police in three stages: an initial interview without a solicitor (when he answered questions), a second terminated on request for a solicitor, and a third conducted with a solicitor in which he repeated essentially the same account as in the first interview. The prosecution case was that the Appellant attended to enforce a drug debt, smashed items, assaulted the Victim and stamped on his torso, threatened others with a knife and later changed clothes. Prosecution evidence included eyewitness testimony from Witness A, Witness B and Witness C, the Pathologist's evidence, telephone/call data and CCTV, and forensic scene evidence (glass fragments with the Appellant's DNA and a kitchen knife found nearby).

The Appellant did not admit identity as the person called "Elvis" until shortly before trial. At trial he gave evidence of learning difficulties, admitted supplying drugs, and denied involvement in the assault. The judge made various rulings during trial; the Appellant advanced multiple grounds of appeal related to those rulings. The Court of Appeal (Judges Coulson, Farbey and Lickley) considered an application to extend time and renew leave to appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing an intermediary for the Appellant during his evidence and in failing to secure that the Appellant gave his best evidence.
2. Whether the judge should have excluded the Appellant's first police interview under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Code C because it was conducted without a solicitor or appropriate adult.
3. Whether it was unfair to give an adverse inference direction (and a lies direction) to the jury in light of the Appellant's cognitive abilities.
4. Whether the prosecution failed to make reasonable inquiries about Witness A's mental health diagnosis (schizophrenia) and whether evidence of that diagnosis should have been admitted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended he required an intermediary at trial because of longstanding cognitive and learning vulnerabilities (special schooling, Education, Health and Care Plan/Statement), and that refusal undermined fairness.
• He argued the first police interview should have been excluded under section 78 PACE and Code C because it took place without solicitor or appropriate adult and his assertions of autism/other vulnerabilities meant he could not properly participate.
• He submitted the adverse inference and lies directions were unfair given his cognitive limitations and that the directions failed to address his explanations for omissions in interview.
• He contended the prosecution did not pursue reasonable lines of inquiry regarding Witness A's possible schizophrenia, which was relevant to alternative perpetrator theories.

Respondent's Arguments

• The court and Single Judge had properly considered expert evidence over two days; the intermediary service's report was not expert evidence and did not establish need for an intermediary.
• The judge correctly assessed the admissibility of the first interview on full evidence (including psychologists and custody staff); experts agreed the Appellant did not have autism, had no mental disorder and functioned at low average intelligence; there was no impairment to answer questions.
• The solicitor present at the third interview raised no concerns about cognition or need for an appropriate adult; the Appellant repeated the same account in represented interview.
• The lies direction and adverse inference were appropriate on the facts; any omission (such as not adding the Appellant's explanations to the adverse inference direction) was a matter counsel could have addressed and could not render the conviction unsafe.
• Evidence about Witness A's mental health lacked a proper nexus to the killing, amounted to inadmissible bad character evidence, and should have been included in a Defence Statement if relied upon.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the trial judge's detailed two-day hearing and rulings and agreed with the Single Judge. On the intermediary point the Court noted:

• The trial judge heard expert evidence from psychologists and considered reports; the intermediary service's report expressly disclaimed expert status and could not substitute for expert evidence.
• The psychological evidence did not demonstrate that an intermediary was required for fairness; the judge's evaluation of the experts and the need for an intermediary was held to be unassailable.

On admissibility of the first interview the Court relied on the trial judge's careful fact-finding after hearing psychologists, the custody sergeant and the interviewing officer. The judge found no autism or mental disorder, and that the Appellant functioned at low average intelligence without evidence that his physical complaints affected his ability to answer. The fact that the Appellant maintained the same account when represented reinforced admissibility; there was no arguable basis to interfere.

On the adverse inference and lies directions the Court accepted that lies were present on the facts and that a lies direction was fair; any addition to the adverse inference direction (for example, expressly reciting the Appellant's explanation for omissions) should have been sought at trial by counsel and, in any event, any omission could not render the conviction unsafe.

On the mental-health inquiry regarding Witness A the Court agreed with the Single Judge that no proper link was established between the asserted diagnosis and the killing; seeking to adduce such evidence would have been an attempt to suggest propensity and thus amounted to bad character evidence, rightly excluded. The Court emphasised that if the defence sought to rely on Witness A as an alternative suspect, that should have been properly pleaded in a Defence Statement.

Overall the Court conducted an independent consideration of the grounds, found the Single Judge's factual findings and legal reasoning sound, and concluded the grounds were not reasonably arguable.

Holding and Implications

REFUSED — extension of time denied and leave to appeal would have been refused.

Direct effect: The Appellant's application for an extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused; the Court would have refused leave to appeal and held the conviction was not arguably unsafe. No broader legal precedent was established by this decision; its effect was to uphold the trial judge's rulings and final conviction in this case.