Moore, R. v

MR JUSTICE JACK: This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.

The applicant, Craig Moore, was convicted on 11th July 2008 in the Liverpool Crown Court of offences against a young woman, GR, who had been his girlfriend. They were assault occasioning actual bodily harm, making a threat to kill, attempted rape and assault by digital penetration of the vagina. The first two offences related to an occasion in April 2007 and the later two to 19th May 2007.

The applicant has prepared his own grounds of appeal. The main ground is that there were a number of inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, in particular in the evidence of GR. These were considered by the judge at some length in the summing-up and he emphasised that, if the jury was not sure that GR was telling them the truth, the applicant must be acquitted. The summing-up was in this respect and overall very fair to the defence case. The jury must nonetheless have decided that they could accept the evidence of GR as to the offences, as is shown by their verdicts. That is something that was properly open to them and the applicant can have no complaint about it. It is not a case where the prosecution evidence was so weak by reason of inconsistencies that the case should not have been left to the jury.

The second proposed ground is that the judge in the summing-up seemed to favour the defence case. As we have indicated, in respect of in particular of the inconsistencies of the evidence of GR, the judge was very fair to the defence. That was not to indicate that he considered that the applicant was innocent. It was for the jury to decide what they made of the evidence that they had heard.

The third ground relates to the defendant's no comment interview, which followed an interview on a previous occasion when he had answered questions. The applicant had told the jury that he had not answered on legal advice. The judge directed the jury appropriately about this matter. The applicant now seeks leave to call his legal advisor to confirm the advice. That could have been done at the trial but might well have been ill advised because of the questions which the advisor might have been asked in cross-examination. It is too late now.

The applicant also wishes to call his previous partner in support of his appeal, to give evidence as to telephone calls from GR. He has not provided any statement from her and to the relevant evidence she might give. This evidence would have been available at his trial. It is unclear whether it would have assisted the defence case. It cannot provide a ground of appeal.

The applicant also complains that in some other proceedings, apparently involving alleged fraud for which he has been arrested, and which he states GR has admitted, she has said they were still in a relationship in April 2007. But the essential date, so far as that is concerned, is 19th May 2007. It appears from the evidence relating to the first two counts and April 2007 that their relationship was then continuing, though in difficulty: see the summing-up at page 15.

The applicant lastly suggests that GR's phone records would show that on 19th May they were in a relationship and she had asked him to stay with her that night. The records could show what calls were made but they could not show their substance. There was in fact evidence at the trial as to telephone calls and text messages but it did not assist: see the summing-up at page 27D to E. There is nothing in this point.

The renewed application is dismissed.