R v Leon Hunt

On 20 March 2019 in the Crown Court at Nottingham, the appellant (then aged 41) was convicted by the jury on an indictment for four counts of rape of a child under 13, contrary to s.5 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Counts 1, 3, 4 and 6) and two counts of assault of a child under 13 by penetration, contrary to s.6 of the Act (Counts 2 and 5). The offences took place during the same period of one month in 2009. In each case the complainant was the same, being a girl aged 11. Following his conviction the appellant was sentenced to a total special custodial sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, comprising a custodial term of 13 years and a further 1-year licence period. Following refusal by the single judge, this is a renewed application by the applicant for an extension of time of 1744 days for leave to appeal against these convictions.

The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person's lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with s.3 of the Act.

The trial involved a direct conflict of evidence between the complainant and the applicant. She alleged the sexual abuse which is the subject of each Count. The appellant denied any such conduct. The applicant was advised and represented before and during the trial by Counsel and solicitors. He makes this application as a litigant in person. He has set out, elaborated and explained his grounds of appeal in the original NG application form and in a series of subsequent documents, all of which we have considered in close detail. His allegations include the contention that his defence was incompetently conducted by his Counsel and solicitors. Following his waiver of privilege they have each responded to his allegations; to which the applicant has further replied. The Prosecution have served a Respondent's Notice to which the applicant has also responded.

The applicant's principal contention may be summarised as follows:

The CPS obtained evidence unlawfully;.

Potentially relevant unused material was not disclosed;

The applicant and the complainant were on speaking terms after the alleged abuse and she visited the family home; and this evidence of a continuing good relationship between them was not sufficiently deployed before the jury and/or put to the complainant in cross-examination;

Expert medical evidence concerning the complainant was not properly deployed in the case and/or there were material missing documents or parts thereof;

The evidence of the applicant in a statement made on 22 January 2019 was not properly deployed;

Counsel was not fully engaged and focused on the case; was at one point distracted by a family emergency; and generally acted incompetently in the conduct of his defence in all these respects;

For all these reasons and generally, the convictions are unsafe.

Having considered all the information and arguments presented by the applicant, we see no arguable basis on any of these grounds of appeal or matters of complaint, nor any arguable basis to suggest that his conviction on any of the Counts in the indictment is unsafe.

As to points (1) and (2), there is no basis whatsoever for the suggestion that evidence was obtained unlawfully or that potentially relevant unused material was not disclosed. The allegations to this effect are simply assertions.

As to point (3), the allegation of a continuing relationship between the applicant and the complainant was fully dealt with in the course of the trial, including in the cross-examination of the applicant; as was the issue of the sleeping arrangements in the house.

As to point (4), there is no basis to consider that relevant medical evidence was not placed before the jury. The issue concerned the significance, if any, of the finding by Dr Emma Fillmore, instructed by the Prosecution, of a defect or notch in the complainant's hymen. In consequence Dr Eva Wolska was instructed on behalf of the applicant to prepare a medical report. In consequence the two doctors produced a joint medical report which distilled and interpreted this and other medical findings. This produced complete agreement between these experts on certain matters, including that there was no expert consensus as to how much weight should be given, in a case of alleged sexual abuse, to the presence of such a notch. In the light of that evidence Counsel concluded that the best means of neutralising any impact of the finding of the notch was to put these agreed expert conclusions into a document of Agreed Facts. There is no arguable basis to doubt the wisdom of that advice and conduct of the applicant's Counsel.

As to point (5), whether or not a statement was taken from the applicant on 22 January 2019, there is no reason to doubt that his evidence on all relevant matters was placed before the jury.

As to point (6), it is evident from the statement of Counsel, including its exhibits of his preparation notes for examination of the applicant, cross-examination of the complainant and his closing speech to the jury, that the applicant was very competently represented; and that Counsel was fully engaged in the conduct of the case. He did have to attend the hospital Accident & Emergency with his young daughter on the morning of the second day of the trial; and was back at Court at the time he had previously indicated, to continue his conduct of the case. The applicant suffered no disadvantage from that event and consequential break in the proceedings.

As to point (7), there is no basis to doubt the safety of the convictions. All relevant evidence and arguments were placed before the jury. The Judge having given them the appropriate legal directions and a fair and accurate summary of the rival evidence, the jury had to decide whether the Prosecution had made them sure that the complainant's account was correct.

In all the circumstances, the proposed appeal has no prospects of success. Accordingly no purpose would be served by granting the very long extension of time that is sought. The application to extend time is therefore refused.