Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant was convicted by a majority jury verdict in the Crown Court on 20 November 2024 of several sexual offences against the Applicant’s stepdaughter, including rape, attempted rape, assault by penetration, and offences involving sexual activity with a child family member. [1][2]
The Applicant’s conviction appeal application was initially refused on the papers by a Single Judge. The Applicant renewed the application for permission to appeal and submitted further grounds and supporting statements. [1][3][4]
The Court of Appeal considered the documentary material and decided that it was unnecessary to listen to the requested audio recordings because the relevant matters were apparent from the documents. [3][5]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether any of the Applicant’s grounds arguably demonstrated that the conviction might be unsafe, so as to justify permission for a full appeal. [6][7]
- Whether the Applicant’s alleged neurodivergent conditions required the appointment of an intermediary and created a possible risk that the conviction was unsafe. [8][9][10]
- Whether the trial judge’s summary of the Complainant’s evidence, instead of replaying the interview video, was arguably improper. [11]
- Whether there was an evidential basis for the allegation that trial counsel had lied on oath or perverted the course of justice. [12]
- Whether an extension of time for appealing should be granted. [13]
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Arguments
- The Applicant challenged the conduct of trial counsel and raised multiple grounds contained in seven boxes. [3][4]
- The Applicant alleged that neurodivergent conditions, including dyslexia and dyspraxia, affected the Applicant’s ability to give evidence and that an intermediary should have been provided. [8]
- The Applicant challenged the trial judge’s decision to summarise the Complainant’s interview evidence rather than replaying the video after a jury request. [3][11]
- The Applicant alleged that trial counsel had lied on oath or had in some way perverted the course of justice. [12]
- The Applicant sought an extension of time for appealing. [13]
Prosecution Case
- The prosecution relied on the Complainant’s evidence, sexually inappropriate text messages between the Applicant and the Complainant, and the Applicant’s viewing of legal pornographic websites concerning sexual relations between a stepfather and stepdaughter. [14][15]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court explained that, under section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, an appeal against conviction requires permission. Under section 2, an appeal must be allowed if the conviction is unsafe and dismissed otherwise. At the permission stage, the question was whether it was arguable that something had occurred which might render the conviction unsafe. [6]
The trial judge had directed the jury properly on the relevant law and summarised the evidence. The jury had heard the competing evidence from the Complainant, the Applicant, and other witnesses, and had concluded by a majority that the allegations were proved. [2][16]
For grounds in boxes 2 to 7, the Court agreed with the Single Judge’s conclusions and rejected the Applicant’s criticisms of that decision. Having reconsidered the material afresh, the Court concluded that none of those matters even arguably suggested that the conviction might be unsafe. [17][18][7]
As to box 1, the Court acknowledged that expert evidence concerning the Applicant’s dyslexia existed in a report from a university and that the Single Judge had referred to it as old evidence. However, after considering all the material and supporting statements, the Court found no arguable basis for concluding that an intermediary was necessary or that the circumstances in which the Applicant gave evidence created a risk of an unsafe conviction. [8][9][10]
The Court held that summarising the Complainant’s evidence in response to the jury’s request, rather than replaying the interview video, was a proper method of dealing with the request and did not arguably create any risk that the conviction was unsafe. [11]
The allegation concerning trial counsel lacked a proper evidential basis. The Court also identified no other possible ground, on the material reviewed, capable even arguably of suggesting that the conviction was unsafe. [12]
The Court noted that it would have granted an extension of time if any appeal ground had merit. Because none did, an extension would be pointless. [13]
Holding and Implications
Permission to appeal was refused. The Court also refused the Applicant’s application for an extension of time. [12][13]
The direct effect was that the Applicant could not pursue the proposed conviction appeal on the grounds advanced. The opinion did not establish a new precedent.