Oudahar, R. v

An appellate court will not disturb a jury’s verdict merely because an applicant repeats factual challenges that were fully explored at trial. Where the defendant had a fair opportunity to challenge the complainant’s evidence and advance his own account, and the judge properly directed the jury, credibility and reliability remain matters for the jury unless an arguable ground shows that the convictions are unsafe.

An application containing no remotely arguable ground may properly be refused. Following a warning, the court may also order loss of time where persistence with the application is unjustified.

The applicant was convicted at Blackfriars Crown Court of two counts of rape and five counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He received a nine-year sentence for one rape, with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.

After a single judge refused leave, he renewed his application. His extensive written submissions alleged that the complainant had lied, the police interview recording had been tampered with, the summing-up was defective, the trial was unfair, and his legal representatives had mishandled the case.

The Crown contended that these matters had been explored at trial and fairly addressed in the summing-up. The central question was whether any ground arguably showed that the jury’s verdicts were unsafe.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal conviction was refused. The court endorsed the single judge’s reasoning. It held that the application disclosed no remotely arguable ground of appeal.

2. The applicant’s complaints substantially sought to reargue factual matters decided by the jury. The complainant had been cross-examined about her failure to report earlier abuse, her contact with her family in Sweden, and the surrounding relationship. Her explanations, and the applicant’s contrary account, were matters for the jury to assess.

3. The allegation that the police interview recording had been altered had been investigated before trial by an expert instructed for the applicant. The expert found no tampering. That issue, and the error concerning the date at the start of the complainant’s interview, had been addressed in the trial and summing-up. They did not provide an arguable basis for impugning the safety of the convictions.

4. The applicant had had a full opportunity to challenge the prosecution evidence and give evidence himself. The trial judge had properly left the issue of the complainant’s reliability to the jury. Their verdicts showed that they were sure of her evidence; the Court of Appeal would not substitute its own factual assessment.

5. Having been warned that persistence could result in loss of time, the applicant was ordered to suffer 42 days’ loss of time under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal conviction was refused. The court ordered 42 days’ loss of time.

• Blackfriars Crown Court: On 3 March 2017, the applicant was convicted of two counts of rape and five counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and received concurrent sentences with a nine-year term for one rape count.

• Single judge: Leave to appeal conviction was refused before the renewed application to the full court.