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 TRURO (MR RECORDER ANDREW OLDLAND) [T20217077] CASE NO 202402041/B4 [2025] EWCA Crim 897 |
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before:
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH
MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY
HIS HONOUR JUDGE ST JOHN-STEVENS
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
REX
V
CHARLES JOSEPH VICTOR HOBBS
__________
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)
_________
The Applicant appeared in Person
_________
JUDGMENT
(APPROVED)
HIS HONOUR JUDGE ST JOHN-STEVENS:
In this case the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to the offences in this case. Under those provisions where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall, during the person’s lifetime, be included in any publication if it is likely to lead to members of the public to identify that person as the victim of the offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act.
This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, bail and a representation order. The applicant attended today and has helpfully set out and augmented his written submissions, which we have allowed him to do in a most helpful and compelling way. We have listened to everything he has said, which perhaps assists us to place into context the applications that the Court has to consider.
3.On 29 July 2022, in the Crown Court at Truro before Mr Recorder Andrew Oldman KC, the applicant (then aged 38) was convicted of one offence of controlling and coercive behaviour, three offences of rape and one offence of assault by penetration. On 16 September 2022, before the same court constituted, the applicant was sentenced. A total of 10 years’ imprisonment was imposed comprising of terms of 2 years and 6 months for the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour (count 1), 10 years on each offence of rape, (counts 2, 3 and 5) and 8 years for the assault by penetration (count 4). Each of those sentences were ordered to run concurrently, one to the other. The applicant renews his application for extension of time for leave to appeal against his conviction, bail and a representation order following a refusal by O’Farrell J, the single judge. This applicant also seeks leave pursuant to section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to introduce fresh evidence from witnesses and video evidence.
4.The facts are fully set out in the Criminal Appeal Office summary and are well known to the applicant. In brief summary, the applicant and the complainant first met on Tinder in December 2019. They started an intimate relationship and at the start of lockdown they lived in a static caravan together. On 28 April 2020, police conducted a welfare check on the complainant at the caravan. When police attended the complainant, she disclosed that she had been assaulted by the applicant, and he was arrested. He was subsequently convicted of assault in March 2021. The complainant, in the course of the investigation of that matter, went on to make further allegations that the applicant displayed controlling and coercive behaviour towards her and that he had raped and sexually assaulted her. The defence case was that none of the violence or abuse as described by the complainant had taken place, and all sexual activity between them was consensual.
5.We turn to the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. The proposed grounds of appeal have been filed by the applicant himself, who appears today unrepresented, and is set out in the appropriate Criminal Appeal Office form. The applicant has also provided a letter dated 18 July 2024, the purport of which was a reinstatement of his case and the complaints raised hitherto.
6.These grounds embrace some criticism of his representation at trial. The applicant has waived privilege and those representing him have responded to the matters he has raised. The applicant was represented by an experienced advocate who set out in a six-page document his response. This document was considered by counsel’s instructing solicitor Hannah Turner who, in an email dated 25 July 2024 “fully endorsed” counsel’s response. The applicant’s grounds or complaints were as follows:
Ground 1
The complainant lied about the events in issue, abused the applicant, she was not cross‑examined. The issues as to the veracity of the complainant and the direction of the abuse were fully explored and placed in front and centre of the factual issues for the jury by the judge. In relation to the allegations that the complainant was not cross‑examined, his barrister set out his response to this complaint stating at paragraph 13 of his response:
“This is not true although the appellant did not witness it. The victim was cross‑examined by me in line with the instruction that I had been provided. The appellant had initially been removed from the courtroom by the Recorder, due to his behaviour and demeanor. I spoke with him in the cells and received his permission to cross‑examine, in his absence, as he was finding it too difficult. I provided appropriate warnings and advice.”
It is plain that the complainant was cross‑examined as there are numerous references in the summing‑up as to what was put to her and her responses in cross‑examination. We also note that within the email previously referred to by Hannah Turner she stated:
“Having conducted an assessment of Mr Hobbs it was determined that he was never to be seen alone. Mr Hobbs presented as a very volatile individual and it would have been inappropriate to have him in any meeting in the office, or at court with only one legal representative at a time. In turn this meant that counsel was always attended.”
We cannot put it more succinctly or with greater clarity than the single judge who concluded:
“... your former partner gave evidence at the trial and was cross‑examined. The conflicting accounts of your relationship were properly left to the jury as matters of fact.”
This ground has no merit.
Ground 2
7.The applicant has fresh evidence from two witnesses, namely Paul Rooney and Michael Stearns. The applicant contends that Paul Rooney can provide evidence of the complainant’s abuse of the applicant, and that he did not provide a statement at the time because the police had threatened him not to make a statement. Mike Stearns can provide evidence that the injury sustained by the complainant in Thailand was not caused by the applicant. We agree with the single judge who concluded:
“Mr Rooney was contacted by the prosecution but did not provide a witness statement and indicated that he did not want to become involved in the trial. Mr Stearns was not identified by you as a potential witness at the trial. No written statements from the witnesses have been provided in support of your application to rely on fresh evidence.”
8.That was the correct position when the papers were before the single judge. The Court now has before it a statement from Mr Rooney to which we will refer to later. The ground was found to have no merit. We are in agreement.
9.Ground 3 relates to the fact a local media story was published during the trial which could have been seen by the jury. We agree with the single judge who concluded:
“... the Judge properly directed the jury on the issues of law, including their duty to consider the case on the evidence. No misdirection has been identified.”
This ground has no merit.
Ground 4
10.The applicant has complaints about his legal representatives, namely that they withheld witness statements and video footage from the jury which the applicant asserts were material to his defence. Further, the legal representatives did not want to advance the case of the applicant more generally. The applicant alleges that counsel did not gothrough the agreed facts with him for comment and he did not cross‑examine the complainant. Further, his representative was volatile and shouted at him and did not listen to his instructions. We agree with the single judge who concluded:
“...your counsel and solicitor have confirmed that they acted on your instructions and represented you to the best of their ability, despite incidents when you became very emotional and aggressive. In particular, your counsel met with you on ten occasions prior to trial, including several lengthy conferences. The court record shows that, in addition to a panic attack, you were disruptive in court on a number of occasions and were required to leave until you had calmed down.”
We conclude this ground has no merit.
11.The Court also has an application before it to adduce additional or fresh evidence. The applicant has provided a response to the decision of the single judge. The applicant now seeks leave to amend his grounds of appeal to introduce further evidence, providing further material in relation to witnesses considered by the single judge. We consider each of those witnesses in turn. Michael Stearns - the first statement is undated and unsigned. The latter statement is signed and dated. There is no obvious reason why the evidence could not have been obtained for trial. This evidence is inadmissible hearsay and not probative of any issue in the case.
Paul Rooney - this statement is also unsigned and undated. Again, no reason or explanation as to why it could not have been adduced at trial is before the Court. This statement provides no admissible evidence.
12.In relation to Daniel Rousen, the evidence within and relating to the applicant’s conduct in court is irrelevant. The witness’s perception and consequential account of the applicant’s interactions with his counsel is directly contradicted by his counsel and solicitors. There is no basis for any suggestion that the applicant’s conviction is rendered unsafe by his behaviour in court or the fact that he had to be excluded from the court on occasions by the Recorder. Daniel Rousen’s account is irrelevant in the context of what evidence did or did not go before the jury. He also refers to a video or recording this Court hasconsidered. The material is inadmissible, it has no probative value,it is not of, nor during the material time the jury were concerned with. Whether the applicant and complainant were or appeared to be amicable at some other time would not assist the jury in their determination of the issues. Trial counsel considered this material and did not deploy it.
Finally, Dawn Murphy. No statement has been provided. We have carefully considered this material; there is no substance in this material that could establish a meritorious ground of appeal. We refuse leave to introduce this evidence.
14.In conclusion the proposed appeal is not reasonably arguable. These renewed applications are therefore 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
