R v Jonathan Jackson

On 27 June 2024, in the Crown Court at Birmingham, the applicant was convicted of one offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to s.18 Offences against the Person Act 1861 (Count 1). He was acquitted of the offence of affray (Count 2). Following refusal by the single judge, the applicant renews his application for an extension of time (99 days) in which to apply for leave to appeal against his conviction.

The essential facts are set out in the Criminal Appeal Office Summary which has been provided to the applicant and do not need further detailed rehearsal. The case against the applicant was that on 6 January 2024 he attended a shared residential house in Birmingham where he knew a man named Patrick Rock. Another resident in the house, the complainant Mr Mark Titley, was there with Mr Rock. The applicant attacked Mr Titley to the head with a cordless drill, with the drill bit attached and spinning. Mr Titley suffered serious injury.

Following a search of the applicant's home a drill was recovered from a wardrobe. Forensic evidence showed the applicant's fingerprint. A swab was taken from three areas of trace stains on and next to the edge of the tension selection ring. The swab was bloodstained and was subject to DNA profiling. A complex DNA result was obtained which indicated the presence of DNA from at least two individuals, possibly more. The examination yielded no further meaningful DNA evidence. A green/yellow Adidas jacket belonging to the applicant was forensically examined. A bloodstain on the right sleeve was subjected to DNA testing and provided a match for Mr Titley's DNA.

By the time of the trial, Mr Titley had died from causes unconnected to the incident. His witness statement was admitted as hearsay evidence. Expert medical evidence of Dr Kim was obtained and adduced in the form of agreed facts. These included that the medical notes described the wound as a "ragged laceration" and that laceration was usually caused by a blunt force trauma. In theory this type of wound could also be created by a penetrating force with a rotational or twisting mechanism, e.g. from a screwdriver or an electric drill. However a typical drill injury had a circular or oval shape, regular and smooth margins, and abrasions around the wound. The medical notes did not mention any of these features, making this mechanism unlikely but not impossible in Mr Titley's case.

By his defence case statement the applicant accepted that he was present at the scene and had been annoyed with Mr Rock and had told him to leave the house. He admitted ownership of a drill but said that he had not removed it from his wardrobe. He denied threatening unlawful violence to anyone or causing any injury to Mr Titley. The applicant did not give evidence at the trial.

The applicant has prepared his grounds of appeal as a litigant in person. These contend in particular that: (1) a witness to the events (John Taylor) did not attend court to confirm his statement. This was because it was false and thus he evaded cross-examination which would have disproved his lie; (2) Mr Rook did not make a statement or attend court. His evidence would have confirmed that the prosecution case was a fabrication. Further he had been allowed back into the house and could have interfered with the evidence; (3) the video evidence used in court, namely police body-worn footage, looked as if it had been tampered with; (4) there had been a delay in the testing of the blood on the jacket; and it should have been tested multiple times to avoid human error. Nor had a sample of Mr Rock's blood been provided for identification; (5) the jury had been biased and some of its members looked as if they knew him; (6) his legal representatives had advised and represented him incompetently, e.g. in the preparation of the defence case statement; the time taken to discuss the case with him; the absence of discussion about disproving the evidence; a late change of counsel; and by confusing the jury; (7) the Judge used coercive language to the jury and showed bias; and the trial was rushed through in two days; (8) there was no blood on the tip of the drill and this was not sufficiently emphasised. Further, Dr Kim's expert opinion that the injury was typical of a blunt force trauma, rather than a drill, was not included in the applicant's defence.

In the light of the applicant's criticism of his legal representation , and following his waiver of privilege, a response was obtained from his Counsel and solicitors for the trial. The Prosecution has also served a response to the renewed application in the form of its Respondent's Notice.

Having reviewed all of the material, we are satisfied that none of the proposed grounds of appeal has any substance. There is no doubt as to the safety of the applicant's conviction.

Taking those grounds in turn: (1) the absence of Mr John Taylor as a witness was to the applicant's benefit, not his disadvantage; (2) Mr Rock did not give a statement to the police; and the applicant did not suggested that he be called as a witness. The suggestion that he had tampered with evidence is pure speculation and runs counter to the contention that he should have been called as a witness; (3) there is no basis to suggest that the body-worn footage had been tampered with, nor did the applicant make such an allegation to his legal team; (4) there is no basis to doubt the reliability of the forensic evidence in respect of the applicant's jacket. Further, the applicant had accepted that it was Mr Titley's blood but said he did not know how it got there; (5) there is no basis to consider that the jury was biased or that any of its members recognised him; nor did the applicant so suggest to his legal team; (6) there is no basis for the suggestion of incompetence by his legal representatives, whether in preparation for, or conduct of, the trial. The applicant approved his defence case statement. He knew well before the trial date that there would be a change of Counsel; (7) there is no basis to suggest bias or unfairness on the part of the Judge. The summing up was fair and accurate. The trial was not rushed. It was shortened by the death of Mr Titley; the decision of the applicant not to give evidence; and the inclusion of Dr Kim's opinion within the agreed facts; (8) the medical opinion of Dr Kim was placed before the jury in the form of the statement of agreed facts. This evidence, including the absence of blood on the tip of the drill, was appropriately emphasised and it was for the jury to take into account in deciding whether or not it was sure of the applicant's guilt. It did not render any conviction unsafe.

In carrying out its evaluation of the evidence the jury was also entitled, if it thought appropriate, to draw an adverse inference from the decision of the applicant not to give evidence. All in all, there can be no doubt as to the safety of this conviction.

Given this conclusion, no purpose would be served by granting the renewed application for the necessary extension of time. That application is accordingly refused.