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. |
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved. |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT PRESTON HHJ MEDLAND CP No: 04ZL2890123 CASE NO 202401904/B5 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 602 |
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before:
LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELL
MR JUSTICE GOSS
MRS JUSTICE THORNTON DBE
REX
V
AUSTIN NEIL DUCKWORTH
__________
Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________
NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION
_________
J U D G M E N T
MRS JUSTICE THORNTON:
Introduction
The applicant renews his application for an extension of time (four days) in which to seek leave to appeal against conviction, following refusal by the single judge.
On 12 April 2024 the applicant was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of murder, for which he was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for life with a minimum term of 17 years, less the 231 days spent on remand.
Facts
The background facts were as follows. The applicant is the son of the deceased who died on 12 October 2023 following an assault on him by the applicant on 26 August 2023. The assault resulted in a bleed on the deceased's brain. The deceased, whilst still alive, was taken to hospital in an ambulance and emergency surgery was carried out. As a result, the deceased’s Warfarin medication had to be stopped. The deceased subsequently suffered a stroke. The stroke ultimately led to the development of terminal pneumonia which is a common complication following prolonged hospitalisation due to a head injury.
At the trial it was the prosecution's case that in repeatedly assaulting the deceased on 26 August 2023 it had been the applicant's intention either to kill him or to cause him really serious harm. The prosecution relied on the victim's account of the assault to a friend and police, the evidence of paramedics, the medical evidence and messages by the applicant about killing his father, as well as evidence of a series of documented incidents of abuse and violence by the applicant towards his father leading up to the attack on 26 August 2023.
Grounds of appeal
There are eight grounds of appeal in the appeal form which we have considered, and which may be summarised as follows:
insufficient evidence for a conviction;
concerns about the way in which the majority verdict was arrived at;
the applicant did not agree the agreed facts;
concerns about the strength of the medical evidence;
no direct evidence of the applicant committing the offence;
unfairness in relation to the police interview;
issues in relation to the family and the inheritance; and
administrative errors on the prosecution's part.
Reasons of the single judge
In refusing permission to appeal, the single judge said as follows:
"The evidence was not wholly dependent on the accounts given and recorded or delivered at the time by your father, although they were compelling. There was also a long history of aggression and assault by you upon him, which the jury were entitled to take into account. There was also direct eyewitness evidence of your presence just outside the scene at the critical time. Hence the 'circumstantial' evidence was extremely strong. There is no necessity for there to be forensic or scientific evidence before there can be an entirely proper conviction. The fact that the agreed facts were not agreed by you personally is also irrelevant. Your counsel agreed the facts, quite properly. In any event none of the agreed facts would have been disturbed by any other evidence, and I note you chose to give no evidence (as was your right). None of the agreed facts was the immediate reason for the conviction. I also note you did not seek to waive privilege and you have not criticised your counsel. I should not be misunderstood: I see no basis for criticising your counsel.
The medical evidence did not specify you as the perpetrator, merely the nature of the injuries and the mechanism of death. That body of evidence was perfectly proper, and properly admitted.
Whether or not you were aware your bail conditions had been extended is irrelevant. Nor was the evidence concerning you as your father's legatee: had that been admitted it is likely it would have made things worse for you.
It is also irrelevant that you were on remand 'longer than you should have been'. You would still have been tried on the same evidence.
The fact that this was a majority verdict is also irrelevant. The proper conditions for a majority verdict were in place and the judge's direction was also properly given."
Discussion
We agree with the assessment of the single judge for the reasons given by him.
In addition, we have considered a letter from the applicant received by the Court of Appeal office on 7 January 2025, after the decision of the single judge, putting forward a further reason for contesting the conviction, namely that the applicant's assault was not the cause of the bleed on his father's brain which was caused by smoking and high blood pressure.
We are not persuaded there is any arguable merit in this new ground of appeal. The agreed facts summarised the medical evidence agreed at trial. The cause of death was a blunt force head injury which caused a large bleed on the brain. Agreed fact 35(e) states that the deceased would not have died when he did, had he not been assaulted.
Decision
The renewed application for permission to appeal is refused on its merits and accordingly it is not necessary for the court to address the extension of time.
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
