R v Nicholas Adam Curtis

On a renewed application for leave to appeal after a lengthy delay, the interests of justice may require an extension of time where a properly arguable ground is identified. The court should examine detailed grounds prepared personally by an applicant with care. Both extension and leave should be refused where none of the grounds is reasonably arguable and the conviction is not arguably unsafe. An earlier altercation need not be treated as central where the real issue is who inflicted the fatal injuries. Inconsistent statements made to police in hospital may be relied on where the defendant was not then under suspicion and the admission is fair. Decisions not to call evidence are forensic choices where the evidence would undermine the case advanced. Fresh evidence contradicting a co-defendant’s sworn evidence may be rejected under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23(2).

The applicant was convicted of murder in the Crown Court at Liverpool on 29 April 2019 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years. He renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction after a single judge refused leave and refused an extension of 1,025 days.

He advanced 10 grounds concerning the treatment of an earlier altercation, police body-worn footage, the summing-up, advice about a manslaughter count, proposed fresh evidence from his co-defendant and the decision not to call a blood-spatter expert. The central questions were whether any ground was reasonably arguable, whether the conviction was unsafe and whether an extension of time should be granted.

The court agreed with the single judge’s decisions and reasons. The renewed application for leave to appeal and the application for an extension of 1,025 days were refused.

1. Extension of time. Given the seriousness of a murder conviction and sentence, the interests of justice could require an extension if a properly arguable point were identified. The court therefore examined the applicant’s personally prepared grounds with care. No such point was found.
2. Earlier altercation. Grounds 1 to 3 were not arguable. The earlier incident was historical context. The central issue for the jury was how the victim died and who inflicted the fatal injuries.
3. Hospital evidence. Grounds 4 and 5 had no merit. The applicant’s statements to police in hospital were inconsistent with his trial account, but he was not then under suspicion of murder. The prosecution was entitled to adduce and rely on the material, and its use was not unfair. This was consistent with the approach under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
4. Summing-up and plea advice. The summing-up was comprehensive, balanced and fair when read as a whole. The complaint about manslaughter advice was also unarguable because the applicant’s case was that he had committed no offence and the prosecution would not have accepted a manslaughter plea.
5. Fresh and expert evidence. The proposed evidence from the co-defendant contradicted his sworn trial evidence and would not be received under section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The decision not to call the blood-spatter expert was a sensible forensic decision: the evidence would have damaged the case actually advanced at trial.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The renewed application for leave to appeal and the application for an extension of time were refused: [2022] EWCA Crim 1731.
2. Single judge — Refused leave to appeal and refused the requested 1,025-day extension.
3. Crown Court at Liverpool — Convicted the applicant of murder on 29 April 2019 and imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of 18 years.