R v Anyawu Chuku

Reporting restrictions apply in this case. No matter relating to the victim shall during her lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify her as the victim of these offences. We shall not name her in this judgment.

This is a renewed application for an extension of 512 days for leave to appeal conviction, and an extension of 3 months in which to renew an application for an extension of 546 days for leave to appeal sentence following refusal by the single judge.

On 16 May 2023 after the jury had been sworn for his trial in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, the applicant changed his plea to guilty of one offence of sexual communication with a child, three offences of breach of a sexual offences prevention order and one offence of failure to comply with notification requirements.

On 17 May 2023 he was sentenced on those offences to a total of 22 months' imprisonment made up in the following way:

The offending placed the applicant in breach of a suspended sentence order imposed in May and June 2021 of 21 months suspended for 24 months for three offences of breach of a sexual harm prevention order. This was activated in part, with 15 months' imprisonment for each of the breaches concurrent inter se but consecutive to the other term imposed. This led to an overall sentence of 27 months' imprisonment.

On 13 February 2015 in the Crown Court at Bolton, the applicant was made the subject of an indefinite sexual offences prevention order when he was sentenced to 64 months' imprisonment for grooming and sexual activity with a child under the age of 16 years. He was also made subject to notification requirements.

Turning to the facts of this case, on 21 June 2021 the applicant was stopped by police and found to have a smartphone concealed in the lining of his jacket. He claimed it was not his. The smartphone showed he had been in contact with a girl under the age of 16 years from when she was aged 15 years and 9 months. The content of the communications was flirtatious and sexual. As soon as she turned 16, the communication became graphically and overtly sexual. The applicant had images (albeit not indecent) of the girl, which together with his contact with her when she was under 16 was in contravention of the terms of his sexual prevention order.

On 12 October 2022 the applicant was again stopped by the police and found in possession of a burner phone which contained references to the existence of a smartphone. The burner phoned revealed repeated use of aliases, which was in contravention of his notification requirements.

Before the applicant's change of plea, a number of applications were made on his behalf to exclude evidence from phones seized and that the prosecution of the offences would be an abuse of process. This latter application related to the timing of the commencement of the prosecution, which related to a telephone of which the prosecution were aware before a subsequent and different case. Those applications failed.

Following the failure of the submissions, the applicant sought a Goodyear indication should he plead guilty to counts to which he ultimately tendered guilty pleas. The judge indicated a total sentence of no more than 30 months' imprisonment. He explicitly stated that such indication did not include any term that may be activated under a suspended sentence order. In the event, we observe that the 27 months' imprisonment imposed, which included the activation of part of the suspended sentence order, was in fact less than the indication of 30 months which had been given.

The judge had the benefit of a pre-sentence report for sentence which described the applicant's engagement on the suspended sentence order as "superficial" and stated that he did not take full responsibility for his behaviour.

Notwithstanding his guilty pleas, the applicant seeks to appeal his conviction on grounds relating to the admissibility of the evidence of the smartphone, which is said to have been unlawfully seized, the evidence from it used against him in an earlier trial and subject to an earlier destruction order from the court. Evidence from the burner phone, it is submitted, should not have been admitted as the sexual prevention order did not prevent him having it. It is further said that the applicant had ineffective counsel and that the victim did not provide a statement to the police.

That is a summary of the grounds. The applicant has sent a great deal of communication setting out his grounds in detail to the Court of Appeal Office. We confirm that we have read each and every one of them and are aware of the details of the submissions that he makes.

The applicant further applies to adduce fresh evidence relating to the phone to demonstrate procedural irregularity. In fact this evidence was deployed at trial by counsel in legal argument. It does not therefore amount to fresh evidence for the purposes of section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and leave is accordingly refused.

These grounds against conviction are in our view entirely without merit for the reasons the single judge gave. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charges against him. In addition, the absence of a waiver of privilege in spite of prompting by the Court of Appeal Office is in our view fatal to the ground that the applicant had inadequate representation. In those circumstances the convictions are not arguably unsafe and leave to appeal conviction is accordingly refused.

The applicant relies on one ground in support of his application for leave to appeal sentence; that is, that the judge unfairly doubled the sentence by making it consecutive.

This is again entirely without merit. The judge substantially reduced the sentence for the breach of notification requirements and further reduced the term he would otherwise have imposed for the breach of the suspended sentence for totality. The judge was entitled and right to make those sentences consecutive. Given the extent of the offending and the breach of a suspended sentence, it is in our view unarguable that the total sentence was either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Leave to appeal sentence is accordingly refused.

We refuse the applications to extend time. There is in our view no good reason for the lengthy extension sought and to do so would serve no useful purpose.