R v Gary Christopher Piggott

Leave to appeal against conviction should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable basis for finding the convictions unsafe. Agreed scientific evidence that is neutral or inconclusive does not, without more, establish that a complainant’s account was false.

Where the jury received proper directions, material inconsistencies were explored, and the trial representation was not arguably inadequate, the appellate court will not disturb verdicts reached after the jury has assessed a conflict of evidence.

Following a jury trial in the Crown Court at Worcester, Gary Piggott was convicted of sexual offences against a child under 13. He sought an extension of time and renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by the single judge.

His proposed grounds challenged the presentation and significance of DNA evidence, the absence of character witnesses, aspects of the complainant’s evidence and interview, and the adequacy of his trial representation. The central question was whether any ground gave an arguable basis for concluding that the convictions were unsafe.

1. Application refused. The court held that none of the proposed grounds had arguable merit and that there was no arguable basis for finding any conviction unsafe.

2. The agreed forensic evidence accurately conveyed that no DNA attributable to the applicant had been detected on the relevant swabs, but that this did not assist in deciding whether the alleged conduct occurred. The error concerning the date of the swabs was identified by the trial judge and operated in the applicant’s favour. Defence counsel had properly relied on the absence of DNA as supporting the defence case, while correctly explaining that it did not itself show that the complainant was lying. The jury had also been directed not to speculate about expert matters.

3. The absence of character witnesses did not arguably make the representation inadequate. The applicant had said that no defence witnesses were required, and the jury received a full good-character direction. Evidence that he had cared for other children would not have materially affected the issue, which concerned the alleged offending against this child on the relevant occasion.

4. The remaining complaints did not undermine the safety of the verdicts. Matters concerning the complainant’s autism, identification, relationship with his mother’s partner, the reporting of the allegation, and alleged inconsistencies had little or no relevance to the central issue, or had been placed before the jury. The case turned on a stark evidential conflict which the jury resolved after hearing all the evidence. The court was satisfied that the experienced defence team’s conduct of the trial was not arguably inadequate.

5. As leave was refused, no purpose would be served by extending time to seek it.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 315, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and did not determine the extension-of-time application because it was unnecessary.

• Single judge, Court of Appeal: Refused leave to appeal against conviction. The separate application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused and was not renewed.

• Crown Court at Worcester: On 7 April 2022, a jury convicted the applicant of two counts of assault of a child under 13 by penetration, three counts of sexual assault of a child under 13, and one count of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity.