ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT OXFORD
HHJ MARIA LAMB
T20217045
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Before :
LADY JUSTICE MAY DBE
HHJ LUCRAFT KC
Between :
Rex | |
- and - | |
WDU |
Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________
NON-COUNSEL APPICATION
_________
JUDGMENT
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. 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 section 3 of the Act. We shall refer to the complainant as "C". The name of the applicant has been anonymised in the listing of this application by use of random letters "WDU" to prevent the possibility of jigsaw identification of C.
Lady Justice May :
The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this offence. 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 section 3 of the Act. We shall refer to the complainant as "C". The name of the applicant has been anonymised in the listing of this application by use of random letters "WDU" to prevent the possibility of jigsaw identification of C.
Introduction
On 10 March 2023 in the Crown Court at Oxford the applicant was convicted of 6 counts of indecent assault (Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9) and two counts of rape (Counts 10, 11). The convictions on Counts 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11 were by a majority of 10:2 and on Counts 1 and 10 by a majority of 11:1. The applicant was acquitted of two further counts of indecent assault (Counts 3 and 8); one further count (Count 6 – indecency with a child) was ordered to remain on the court file on the usual terms.
On 19 May 2023 the applicant was sentenced to a special custodial sentence of 16 years comprising a custodial term of 15 years and a further 1 year licence period on Count 11 (rape) with concurrent sentences of varying lengths on the remaining offences. There were the usual ancillary notification and barring requirements.
At this hearing the applicant renews his application for an extension of time of 444 days for leave to appeal conviction and a representation order, following refusal by the single judge.
Background facts
The facts of the alleged offending and the evidence at trial are set out in detail in the CAO summary; it is unnecessary to repeat them all here. Shortly stated, the prosecution case was that the applicant sexually abused C on multiple occasions between 1982-1988, when the applicant was in a relationship with C’s mother and C was aged between 5 and 11 years old. Counts 1 (indecent assault) and 10 (rape) were specific incident counts; the remaining counts of indecent assault and rape were multiple incident counts.
To prove its case the prosecution relied on evidence from C, C’s mother, a friend of C to whom C disclosed the abuse and an aunt.
The Defence case at trial was denial of any sexual act. The applicant gave evidence and called a number of character witnesses.
Grounds of Appeal
The applicant has prepared grounds of appeal himself. We have considered them carefully. His complaints fall under four general headings, which we summarise as follows.
Credibility issues concerning the complainant.
Complaints about the trial representatives.
Issues about the prosecution case.
Jury issues.
Reasons for seeking an extension of time
The applicant has given the following reasons for the delay in appealing his conviction: he states that he did not know of the time limit for an appeal against conviction. He further says that he received a letter from his trial representatives on 4 April 2023, after the 28-day time limit had expired, stating that there were no real grounds for appealing.
Waiver of privilege
In view of complaints made by the applicant about the conduct of his defence at trial, he was asked to, and did, sign a waiver of privilege. We have seen and read responses from trial counsel (Ms Carpenter) dated 3 September 2024, together with the advice which she gave to her client on appeal following his conviction, in essence advising him that there existed no good grounds for appeal. We have also read carefully the applicant's reply to Ms Carpenter's response.
Respondent's Notice
The prosecution have taken issue with the applicant's grounds of appeal in a detailed Respondent's Notice which we have seen and read.
Decision
In refusing leave the Single Judge said this:
It is suggested that trial counsel was not properly prepared and did not ask all relevant questions. Counsel has put in a full response. She had been instructed well before the second trial, had had a full pre-trial conference and was properly prepared at trial.
Transcripts of the interview (edited, as is conventional, to remove irrelevancies) were before the Jury. There is also no basis for asserting that what he said there was not properly investigated.
To say that the prosecution case was all based on hearsay is absurd. It was based on direct evidence.
As to the credibility of the complainant, there were agreed facts as to her antecedent history and she could not be presented as a person of good character. It is also said that she gave untruthful or inaccurate answers on a number of matters. But those were trial points and were the subject of cross examination and cannot be argued all over again on appeal.
That there were 8 women on the Jury in law affords no ground of appeal.
It is suggested that relevant witnesses were not called. But it is not identified just what relevant evidence they could give. Reference is also made to the abandoned first trial, but that is not relevant to the retrial. It is also suggested that there is inconsistency between the conviction on some counts and acquittals on others. But the evidence on each count was not the same; and it is common-place in Jury trials for there to be convictions on some counts but not on others, without any illogicality.
None of the various other points raised affords any arguable ground of appeal.
I conclude that the grounds are simply not arguable."
We respectfully agree and can usefully add nothing further. Had there been any arguable merit in the applicant’s grounds, whether taken singly or together, then we would have considered granting the very lengthy extension of time sought. But there is no merit and accordingly no purpose in granting an extension. For these reasons the application for an extension of time is refused and the appeal is dismissed.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk