Williams, R. v

An adjournment may be refused where it would cause substantial further delay and an unrepresented applicant can fairly present the application in person. Proposed fresh evidence will not justify reopening a conviction where it was, or ought to have been, available at trial and would not undermine the evidence supporting the verdict. A vague alternative view of the cause of an injury does not create an arguable ground of appeal when it is contradicted by available evidence and no expert evidence supports it.

The applicant had been convicted at Lewes Crown Court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, assault by beating, fraud and dangerous driving. A previous appeal reduced his total sentence but otherwise affirmed it.

He then sought a substantial extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction, permission to rely on fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, and a representation order. He also sought an adjournment to obtain legal representation.

The proposed evidence was an ISR report referring to an ambulance staff member's belief that the complainant's leg injuries were consistent with being dragged by, rather than run over by, the car. The central issues were whether the applications should be adjourned or granted and whether the material provided an arguable basis to challenge the conviction.

1. The renewed applications were refused. The court also refused an adjournment. It balanced fairness to the applicant against finality and the need to avoid undue delay. A further hearing was not realistically available for many months, and the applicant was able to address the court in person.
2. The ISR report did not provide a basis to admit fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Its contents had been identified in the unused-material schedule, although trial counsel had not seen that entry. In any event, the reported view of an unidentified ambulance staff member was vague and was contradicted by the available nursing evidence of tyre marks on the complainant's leg.
3. Even if the material had been admitted, there was ample evidence capable of supporting the complainant's account and the causation of her injuries. The applicant had not obtained expert evidence to contradict the prosecution case. His trial evidence had denied running over the complainant's leg and had not advanced an alternative explanation for the injuries.
4. The court reviewed the material and agreed with the single judge's detailed reasons. There was no arguable ground of appeal, no basis for fresh evidence, and consequently no prospect that leave to appeal against conviction would be granted. The applications for an extension of time and for legal representation were therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the renewed applications for an extension of time, fresh evidence, legal representation and leave to appeal against conviction.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 17 October 2018, the court reduced the total sentence from four years and three months to three years and three months, but otherwise affirmed the sentence.
• Crown Court at Lewes: On 20 February 2018, the applicant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, assault by beating, fraud and dangerous driving. He was sentenced on 13 April 2018.