Alan P, R. v

An application for leave to appeal against conviction requires an arguable ground. Speculative criticism of a police investigation, or criticism of witnesses whom the defence chose not to call, will not establish such a ground. A complaint about counsel must identify conduct capable of undermining the safety of the conviction; proper forensic decisions and the use of widespread trial practices do not suffice. An asserted risk that a jury was rushed must be supported by evidence of actual pressure, not merely by a trial timetable.

The applicant was convicted at Basildon Crown Court on 6 October 2016 of 12 counts of indecent assault contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The offences concerned his stepdaughter when she was aged 15 and 16 in about 1980–81. He received a total sentence of six years’ imprisonment.

A single judge refused permission to appeal against conviction and an extension of time. The applicant renewed those applications, alleging inadequate police investigation, deficient representation by counsel and solicitors, and pressure on the jury to reach a verdict within the intended four-day trial period.

1. The court refused leave to appeal against conviction and refused the application for an extension of time.
2. It adopted the single judge’s detailed reasons. The complaints about the investigation were speculative or misconceived. It was for the defence to call evidence supporting its case, and the decisions not to call the applicant’s former wife and son had been made with counsel.
3. The proposed questions had been pursued to the extent appropriate in cross-examination and closing submissions. Complaints that the police did not conduct further searches or interviews disclosed no arguable basis for challenging the conviction.
4. The complaints concerning representation did not identify deficient advocacy. Counsel’s approach to the questions was appropriate; the prosecution was entitled to present its case as it thought fit; and reading the applicant’s police interview was a widespread trial practice to which counsel could not properly be criticised for failing to object.
5. There was no evidential basis for the allegation that the judge rushed the jury. Counsel recalled no improper pressure, and the judge had indicated that the trial could continue into a second week if necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2018] EWCA Crim 1069, the court refused renewed leave to appeal against conviction and an extension of time.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal: Permission to appeal against conviction and an extension of time of 28 days were refused.
• Basildon Crown Court: On 6 October 2016, the applicant was convicted of 12 counts of indecent assault and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in total.