Factual and Procedural Background
On 4 August 2025, the Applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at The City of one count of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and one count of threatening another with an offensive weapon contrary to section 1A of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. On 27 October 2025, the Applicant received a total sentence of 29 months’ imprisonment, together with ancillary orders. [1]
The Applicant represented himself at trial, although an advocate was appointed to cross-examine the two complainants. [2] The prosecution alleged that the Applicant attacked Complainant 1 with a hammer and threatened Complainant 2. The Applicant instead alleged that Complainant 1 was the aggressor, that any use of force was defensive, and that the CCTV evidence had been fabricated or altered. [3][4]
The Applicant sought an extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against conviction after the Single Judge refused leave on 4 March 2026. The Court granted the necessary extension and considered the renewed application on its merits. [5]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether there was an arguable basis for challenging the convictions on the grounds concerning CCTV evidence, jury directions, cross-examination, the conduct of the trial, the summing-up, grievous bodily harm and causation, and the exclusion of documents. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
- Whether the convictions were unsafe and whether leave to appeal should therefore be granted. [13]
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Arguments
- There were allegedly six versions of the CCTV footage, and the prosecution should have been required to disclose them. [14]
- An earlier draft of the written directions allegedly wrongly referred to drug convictions, and the Applicant said that he did not receive the final directions. [15]
- The Applicant alleged that he had been prevented from cross-examining a police officer about discrepancies in the CCTV footage. [16]
- He alleged that he had been unfairly restricted concerning previous incidents, while the prosecution had been permitted to range more widely. [17]
- He challenged the summing-up, including the directions on the burden and standard of proof and adverse inferences from his interviews. [18][19]
- He argued that the judge had failed properly to address grievous bodily harm and causation, and that Complainant 2’s evidence was unsupported. [20][21]
- He contended that he had not been permitted to place documents before the jury because they had not been prepared by a solicitor. [22]
Respondent’s Position
- The Respondent’s Notice stated that the CCTV held by the prosecution was all that existed and that footage provided by the Applicant was the same material already held. [23]
- The Respondent maintained that the Applicant had cross-examined witnesses about the alleged tampering and had not been prevented from putting admissible matters concerning the footage to them. [16]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found no evidential basis for the allegation that additional CCTV existed or that the disclosed footage had been withheld, fabricated or tampered with. The issue was fully placed before the jury, which was directed to decide whether the footage had been edited or showed a continuous episode. The Court’s review indicated that the footage showed the incident continuously. [23][24][25]
The final written directions correctly stated that the Applicant had good character and no convictions or cautions, and gave the conventional directions concerning credibility and propensity. Any error in an earlier draft was therefore immaterial. [15][26][27]
The Court held that any limits on cross-examination concerned irrelevant matters and could not have rendered the convictions unsafe, particularly because the CCTV allegations were clearly summarised for the jury. [16]
The judge’s direction concerning other alleged incidents was considered careful and appropriate: the jury could disregard incidents they were unsure had occurred and could not convict principally on uncharged conduct. [17]
The summing-up properly addressed the burden and standard of proof, the elements of both offences, self-defence, causation, good character and adverse inferences. The instruction that the jury had to be sure of guilt was legally sufficient; the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” was not required. [18][28]
The adverse-inference direction properly identified the matters omitted from the Applicant’s interviews and explained that no adverse conclusion should be drawn if the Applicant genuinely relied on legal advice in remaining silent. [19]
The directions on grievous bodily harm and causation required the jury to determine whether the Applicant’s actions caused injuries amounting to really serious bodily injury. The evidence concerning Complainant 1’s injuries, catheterisation and continuing treatment provided matters for the jury to assess, alongside the Applicant’s contention that the kidney injury was coincidental. [20]
The Court considered that the complaints largely sought to re-argue factual issues that had properly been left to and rejected by the jury. The jury had been entitled to reject the Applicant’s accounts concerning the CCTV, self-defence, the alleged aggression and the threat. [29]
Holding and Implications
The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The Court agreed that there was no arguable basis for concluding that the convictions were unsafe. [13]
The direct effect was that the Applicant’s convictions remained undisturbed. The opinion did not establish any new precedent.