Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant was convicted after a jury trial in the Crown Court of nine counts of indecent assault and six counts of rape concerning two complainants, C1 and C2. He was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. [1][2][3]
The Single Judge refused the Applicant’s application, made 2,023 days out of time, for leave to appeal against conviction. The Applicant, acting in person, renewed the application before the Full Court and also sought a representation order. [1][4]
The Court noted that statutory reporting restrictions applied because the case concerned sexual offences, and that the restrictions had not been waived. [5]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should extend time by 2,023 days for the Applicant to seek leave to appeal against conviction. [1][4]
- Whether the proposed grounds of appeal disclosed any arguable basis for doubting the safety of the convictions. [6][7]
- Whether a direction should be made that 28 days of time spent in custody should not count towards the Applicant’s sentence. [8]
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Arguments
- The Applicant advanced numerous grounds alleging consent-related errors, unlawful prosecution, unfairness at trial, evidential inconsistencies, collusion, perjury, disclosure failures, police impropriety, and other defects. [7][9][10][11][12][13][14]
- He argued that allegations concerning the health of the complainants’ father had not been properly investigated and that issues arose concerning alleged prior allegations by C1 and her credibility. [9][10][15]
- He challenged the disclosure and use of C1’s medical records and argued that there was insufficient corroboration of the complainants’ allegations. [11][14]
- He attributed the delay partly to attempts to have alleged perjury investigated by the police and other agencies, and suggested that he had been treated differently because he was acting in person. [16][17]
Respondent’s Position
- The Respondent’s Notice addressed the alleged trial defects, including the evidence concerning the complainants’ father, the correction of an earlier mistake about C1’s prior allegations, disclosure of medical notes, and the availability of cross-examination. [18][10][19][20]
- It was submitted that the proposed grounds did not demonstrate that the convictions were unsafe. [20]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first found that the Applicant had provided no sensible explanation for the extraordinary delay. His attempts to pursue alleged perjury with other agencies did not explain the failure to lodge an appeal in time, and acting in person did not justify different treatment. Granting the extension without an adequate explanation would be contrary to the good administration of justice. [17]
The Court nevertheless considered the proposed grounds because their merits could be relevant to an extension-of-time application. It concluded that, individually and cumulatively, they did not cast arguable doubt on the safety of the convictions. [7]
The Court rejected the consent and prosecution arguments because the charges were brought under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, not the Sexual Offences Act 2003; no grooming or “rape by submission” charges had been formulated; and the trial judge’s directions on consent and submission could not be faulted. [21][22]
The complaints concerning the father’s health were matters that could be explored in cross-examination and had been raised in the defence case and closing submissions. The assessment of that evidence was for the jury. [18][10]
The Court found no sufficient basis for admitting alleged prior false allegations by C1 as bad-character evidence. It also observed that the defence could have obtained a statement from C1’s former husband, because there is no property in a witness. [15][19]
Although an additional medical note might arguably have been disclosed before trial, the Court considered that it would not have suggested that the convictions were unsafe. Alleged inconsistencies, collusion, and credibility issues had been placed before the jury, whose function it was to evaluate them. [11][20]
The Court further rejected the challenges concerning C1’s alleged psychosis or suicide attempt, the loft allegation, and an alleged further rape allegation, finding that the relevant evidence had been addressed at trial or that the alleged matter had not been advanced. [12][13][23]
Finally, the Court emphasised that an appeal is not an opportunity for a convicted defendant simply to re-argue the case. The jury had accepted the evidence of C1 and C2 and rejected the Applicant’s account; none of the proposed grounds disclosed an arguable error affecting the convictions. [24][25]
In deciding whether to impose a loss-of-time direction, the Court considered the Applicant’s conduct, including his failure to respond constructively to requests for clarification, his unexplained delay, and his refusal to waive privilege concerning criticisms of his former legal team. [8]
Holding and Implications
APPLICATION REFUSED. The Court refused the 2,023-day extension of time and therefore refused the application for leave to appeal against conviction. [25]
The Court also ordered a loss-of-time direction of 28 days, meaning that period of custody would not count towards the sentence. [8]
The direct effect was that the Applicant’s convictions remained undisturbed and 28 days were excluded from computation of the sentence. The opinion does not identify any broader implication or establish a new precedent. [25][8]