R v Michael John Lovell

A criminal appellate court will not interfere with a jury’s factual verdict where the trial was regular, the summing-up contained no legal error, and the verdict is intelligible on the evidence. An acquittal on counts alleging repeated offending does not itself render unsafe a conviction for a separate single offence, where the jury could be sure of the latter but not of the required number of further acts.

Fresh evidence which is contradicted by a reliable trial transcript provides no basis to challenge the conviction. A renewed application that discloses no arguable ground that the conviction is unsafe may be refused, and an exceptionally meritless application may justify a loss of time order.

R v Michael John Lovell concerned a renewed, substantially out-of-time application for leave to appeal against a conviction for rape. The applicant had been convicted by an 11:1 majority in the Crown Court at Bournemouth on 15 March 2018 and sentenced to a special custodial sentence of 15 years. He was acquitted on the remaining counts.

The single judge had refused leave in September 2018. On renewal, the applicant advanced numerous complaints about the trial, the transcript, his representation, the jury’s verdict and alleged judicial conduct. He also sought to adduce evidence from four witnesses concerning alleged events at the end of the trial.

The central issue was whether any asserted irregularity, fresh evidence or perceived inconsistency in the verdicts disclosed an arguable basis for finding the conviction unsafe.

1. The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal, the application to adduce fresh evidence, and the application for an extension of time. It made a loss of time order of 28 days.

2. The transcripts were accepted as genuine, accurate and complete records of the trial. They contradicted the allegations that the judge had threatened to decide the case if the jury could not do so, or that a juror had been absent when deliberations began. The court rejected the allegation that the recordings had been edited as untrue. The trial had been conducted professionally, counsel had represented the applicant effectively, and the legal directions and summing-up disclosed no error.

3. The acquittals on counts requiring proof of at least 20 rapes in each charged period did not create a lurking doubt about the conviction for the first rape. The jury could logically be sure that one rape had occurred while not being sure that the alleged further repeated offending had been proved to the required extent.

4. It was for the jury to decide the disputed facts. As there was no irregularity in the trial process, no defect in the summing-up, and no inexplicable verdict, there was no basis for appellate intervention. The material said to be fresh evidence did not undermine that conclusion because it was contradicted by the transcript. The court therefore held that there were no arguable grounds for saying that the conviction was unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In R v Michael John Lovell, [2023] EWCA Crim 802, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, the application to adduce fresh evidence and the application for an extension of time.

• Crown Court at Bournemouth: On 15 March 2018, the applicant was convicted by an 11:1 majority of one count of rape and sentenced to a 15-year special custodial sentence. He was acquitted on the other counts.

• Single judge: Leave to appeal was refused in September 2018.