Dorsett, R v

Fresh evidence will not justify an extension of time or an appeal against conviction unless it meets the criteria in section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The court must consider all the circumstances, including credibility, admissibility, whether the evidence could afford a ground for allowing the appeal, and any reasonable explanation for its absence at trial.

Evidence suggesting an alternative motive for an attack will not render a conviction unsafe where it does not assist the defendant’s case on the issue actually tried, including the circumstances honestly believed by the defendant when force was used.

The applicant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of murder and attempted wounding with intent following violence at his flat. His trial case was that he had acted in lawful self-defence against unknown men whom he believed had come to rob him.

More than three years after conviction, he sought an extension of time and leave to appeal on the basis of a statement by Amber Williams. The statement suggested that the attack was motivated by sexual jealousy rather than drugs or robbery. A single judge refused the application. The renewed applications required the court to decide whether the delay was excusable and whether the proposed fresh evidence could render either conviction unsafe.

1. The renewed applications were refused. There was no satisfactory explanation for the very substantial delay in advancing the proposed evidence. The applicant had apparently received a letter about it in February 2016, but the witness statement was not signed until January 2019. The court was not persuaded that, if the witness had material evidence, there was any good reason why she could not have been called at trial.

2. The proposed evidence did not provide an arguable ground for challenging the safety of the murder conviction. At most, it supplied an additional or alternative motive for the deceased and Roper to attend the flat. It did not assist the applicant’s trial case that he did not know the men and believed that they had come to rob him.

3. The judge had correctly directed the jury to assess self-defence by reference to the circumstances which the applicant honestly believed to exist. If the applicant did not know that the intrusion related to sexual jealousy, the new evidence could not affect that assessment. If he did know, no credible explanation had been given for the failure to advance that case or call the witness at trial.

4. The suggested evidence could not affect the attempted-wounding conviction. Applying section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court held in particular that the evidence was incapable of affording a ground for allowing the appeal and that there was no reasonable explanation for its absence at trial. The court agreed with the single judge that there was no arguable challenge to the safety of either conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction were refused.

• Single judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the out-of-time application for leave to appeal against conviction.

• Central Criminal Court: On 27 July 2015, the applicant was convicted of murder and attempted wounding with intent.