R v Darren Hillman

On 5 September 2023 in the Crown Court at Lewes, the Applicant was convicted unanimously of nine counts of indecency with a child and two counts of indecent assault for which he was subsequently sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment. He renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by the single judge.

Given the issues raised by the appeal, it is only necessary to give a brief outline of the factual background.

The case concerned alleged historic sexual offending. There were two complainants. On 8 January 2019 the police received a call from C1. She alleged sexual abuse by the Applicant. Subsequently police spoke to C2 and she also alleged sexual abuse by the Applicant.

It was the prosecution's case that the Applicant had sexually abused the two complainants in the late 1990s when they were very young children.

C1 disclosed three different incidents. On more than one occasion the Applicant had incited her to masturbate him; on another occasion he pushed the back of her head down towards his penis, forcing her to take his penis in her mouth; on another occasion she and C2 were at the Applicant's flat when the Applicant made both of them jump on the bed before proceeding to lick their vaginas whilst lying underneath them.

C2 detailed a number of occasions whereby she said she had also been abused by the Applicant which followed a similar pattern.

To prove its case the prosecution relied on the accounts of the complainants. C1's father gave evidence. The prosecution also relied on the Applicant’s previous convictions in 2000 for two offences of gross indecency against C2, which were said to reveal a tendency by the Applicant to commit sexual offences against young girls.

In interview the Applicant denied all the offences, saying that he had never sexually assaulted either complainant. In his defence case statement he continued to deny any wrongdoing, saying that the allegations had been “made up”.

The Applicant did not give evidence. His case at trial was that the complainants were mistaken and/or lying. He relied on their delay in making the complaints and said the delay deprived him of the opportunity to gather any evidence.

The grounds of appeal are that the conviction is unsafe due to the Applicant's confused state during the trial. In an advice on appeal, counsel, then instructed for the Applicant, explained that the Applicant had self-harmed and called 999 a week previous to the trial. He did not attend court on the first day of the trial. When called he came immediately to court. The Applicant was in supportive accommodation where he had a key worker and was checked three times a day for his welfare. The Applicant was remanded in custody by the judge for his own safety. The court psychiatric nurse assessed the Applicant and considered him "okay but low in mood", which was considered to be due to the Applicant being remanded in custody.

The case continued and the Applicant presented as low in mood. His counsel submitted in the advice that his instructions did not make sense on a key issue. The Applicant became very concerned about his parked car and parents' ashes and he became angry during the course of the trial as a result of disclosure issues. During the trial the Applicant self-harmed again by cutting his wrists and he was taken to A&E for a mental health assessment. His key worker attended court most days. An application was made to discharge the jury which was rejected by the judge.

The core issue for the jury at trial was whether they accepted the truthfulness and accuracy, or otherwise, of the complainants' evidence and the implications of the previous convictions after a trial for a similar offence against one of the complainants in this case. The Applicant did not give evidence.

On the first day of trial when defence counsel raised a concern about the Applicant's mental health, the judge arranged for the Applicant to be examined by a psychiatric nurse who concluded that whilst the Applicant was low in mood, he was not unfit to plead. In addition, the Applicant was remanded in custody for his own safety.

The following day when an issue was raised about the mental health impact on the Applicant of not having had access to a shower, the judge indicated that the Applicant must be allowed to shower and the trial would not commence on the following day if the Applicant had not been provided with the opportunity to do so.

No issue regarding the Applicant's ability to give evidence was raised during the trial. No application was made to call witnesses to deal with any matter which may have been raised between the Applicant and defence counsel in the cells after C1's father had completed his evidence.

At one point during the trial the Applicant raised an issue regarding his antecedents with his Counsel which was then by his Counsel raised in court. This indicates the Applicant was able to participate properly in the trial process.

The application to discharge the jury following the second self-harming incident was made at a time when all the evidence had been completed and the disclosure process was also complete. At the time defence counsel sought discharge of the jury to enable a psychiatric report to be prepared on the Applicant. Having seen the psychiatric report prepared for the sentencing hearing, it is difficult to see how obtaining such a report prior to the trial or prior to the trial continuing would have assisted the Applicant in terms of the trial process. The report prepared for sentence does not suggest the Applicant has Autistic Spectrum Disorder and does not support the concern about a lack of mental functioning sufficient to suggest the conviction was unsafe.

Accordingly, there is no material before us which supports the suggestion that the Applicant was confused during the trial to an extent that rendered the trial process unfair or such that the convictions could be deemed to be unsafe.

Accordingly, for these reasons the renewed application for permission to appeal is refused.