R v WG

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.

On 20 November 2024 in the Crown Court at Caernarfon, the applicant was convicted by a jury, by majority verdict, of a number of sexual offences. These included offences of sexual activity with a child family member, assault by penetration, inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity, rape and attempted rape. The applicant applied for leave to appeal against his conviction but that was refused on the papers by the Single Judge.

The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal. We have read all the documentation submitted by the applicant. This includes the initial documents setting out his grounds in what we can refer to as seven boxes. We have read the subsequent material submitted including, but not limited to, the documents including new grounds, namely the way the trial judge is said to have dealt with the request to see the video of the complainant's interview and criticism of his counsel. We have also read the applicant's comments and observations on the decision of the Single Judge. We have also read amongst other documents the statements of his partner, his mother, his brother-in-law and his stepson. We have considered whether it was necessary to listen to audio recordings of parts of the hearing as requested by the applicant. We decided that that was not necessary. In this particular case the important thing was what was said and that was apparent from the documents.

In view of some of the observations made by the applicant on the role of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) it is sensible to bear in mind the legal provisions. Section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 provides that a person may appeal against conviction but only with leave, that is with the permission of the court:. Where leave is given, section 2 provides that a court shall allow an appeal against conviction if they think the conviction is unsafe and shall dismiss an appeal in any other case. At this stage, we are considering the question of leave, that is, in practical terms, whether it is arguable that something may have occurred which might be said to make the conviction unsafe. If we thought that, we would grant leave for a full appeal hearing; if we did not think that we would refuse leave to appeal.

The facts can be stated shortly. The applicant was accused of a series of sexual offences against his stepdaughter. The applicant was represented at trial by counsel although he now criticises that counsel and criticises counsel's conduct of the trial. The trial was presided over by a judge who directed the jury properly on the relevant law and he also summarised the evidence. By a majority the jury convicted.

The prosecution relied upon the evidence of the stepdaughter. They also relied additionally on text messages which passed between the applicant and the stepdaughter and which were said to be sexually inappropriate. The prosecution also relied upon the fact the applicant had viewed pornographic sites with a theme of sexual relations between a stepfather and a stepdaughter. Those sites were legal sites and the applicant did not commit any offence by looking at them. The jury were in effect invited to treat the messages and the interest in the legal pornographic sites as evidence of the existence of a sexual interest which it was said supported the prosecution case.

The defendant also gave evidence and others were called to give evidence on his behalf. The central issue for the jury was whether they were sure that each relevant allegation in each count on the indictment was true, that is: were they sure that the thing alleged actually happened? The complainant said it did happen. The applicant said it did not happen. The jury heard the evidence. They concluded by a majority that they were sure that the relevant things had in fact happened in relation to each of the counts on the indictment and they convicted the applicant accordingly.

The grounds of appeal appear principally from questions in boxes 1 to 7 in the initial material provided by the applicant. The points made were elaborated or repeated and were said to be supported by the statements of various people in subsequent documents.

The Single Judge who considered the papers available before him considered that the easiest way to address the grounds of appeal was to consider the questions in the boxes. We agree that that is a useful place to start. We have read the documents and in relation to boxes 2 to 7 inclusive, we consider that the judge who looked at the papers came to the right conclusion for the reasons he gave. We do not consider that there is any point in repeating his reasoning on those matters. We are aware of the criticisms that the applicant makes of the judge's reasoning and of the applicant's view that he does not think that this judge should in fact have dealt with the application. We disagree with the criticisms and we disagree with the suggestion that the judge should not have dealt with the application.

In any event, we have considered the matter afresh. We have read the papers that were before the judge, we have read the subsequent documentation and the statements submitted. We consider that the judge's reasonings in fact adequately reflects our own reasons for thinking that none of the matters referred to even arguably suggest that the conviction may be unsafe.

We deal separately with box 1. That includes the applicant's view that he had neuro-divergent conditions which affected his ability to give evidence over three days. In particular, he says he should have been given an intermediary to support him. The conditions are said to include the applicant's dyslexia and dyspraxia. The applicant complains that the Single Judge who considered the papers said there was no expert evidence that he suffered from any relevant neuro-divergent condition. There was in fact expert evidence in the form of a report from a university as to the applicant's dyslexia. In fact the judge well knew that because he referred to it albeit he referred to it as old evidence.

We have considered this matter carefully. We have considered all the material relating to the neuro-divergent conditions referred to by the applicant. We do not consider that the material produced by the applicant or the statements submitted on his behalf even arguably demonstrates that an intermediary was necessary to enable him to give his evidence. We do not see that the circumstances in which he gave his evidence could even arguably have given rise to any risk of the conviction being unsafe. We therefore refuse leave in relation to the grounds contained in box 1 and also, as we have said, in relation to the questions in boxes 2 to 7 inclusive.

We refuse leave to rely on the additional ground relating to the fact that the judge summarised the evidence of the stepdaughter following the request from the jury rather than replaying the video of the interview. That was a perfectly proper way of dealing with the jury's request. It did not, even arguably, give rise to any possible unsafety in relation to the conviction.

We also refuse leave to rely on the new ground which appears to involve the claim that the applicant's barrister lied on oath or in some way perverted the course of justice. We see no proper evidential basis for such assertions. We see no other possible grounds on the material that we have read for considering that the conviction might even arguably be thought to be unsafe. We would therefore refuse the application for leave to appeal.

The applicant has applied for an extension of time for appealing. If there had been merit in any of the grounds of appeal we would have granted that extension. As there is no merit in any of the grounds, granting an extension of time would be pointless and we therefore refuse that application as well. We therefore refuse the application for an extension of time for leave to appeal and in any event we refuse the application for leave to appeal.