DM v R

An extension of time to seek leave to appeal may be refused where an applicant had clear advice about the time limit and the explanation does not justify a substantial delay. Fresh evidence should not be admitted under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 where there is no reasonable explanation for failing to adduce it at trial and it could not cause the court to doubt the safety of the convictions. The court may decline to exercise its discretionary power to admit such evidence where admission would not serve the interests of justice.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Croydon of historic sexual offences against his daughter and received a special custodial sentence for an offender of particular concern.

More than 370 days after the time limit had expired, he renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction after a single judge had refused permission. He also sought an extension of time and permission to adduce fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

His grounds challenged, among other matters, the indictment dates, alleged inconsistencies in the evidence, disclosure, special measures, and the adequacy of his representation. The central issues were whether the delay should be excused and whether the proposed evidence or grounds gave any reason to doubt the convictions’ safety.

1. The application was refused. The court refused an extension of time, renewed leave to appeal against conviction, and permission to adduce fresh evidence.

2. The applicant had received written advice shortly after conviction that an application had to be lodged within 28 days and explaining the procedure. His application was made 370 days late. The court considered it highly unlikely that he had been advised that the deadline did not matter. In any event, his stated difficulties in obtaining and funding representation did not justify the length of the delay.

3. The court nevertheless considered the merits. The eight grounds had no merit for the reasons given by the single judge. The further letters and photographs supplied after that decision did not undermine its correctness. They either repeated matters already considered or raised peripheral points. The complaints about representation were also without merit.

4. Under section 23(2)(d) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, there was no reasonable explanation for failing to call the proposed witnesses at trial, since they were known to the applicant beforehand. Their potential evidence could not conceivably cause doubt about the convictions’ safety. The case ultimately turned on the complainant’s credibility, which the jury accepted while rejecting the applicant’s evidence.

5. Although section 23 gives the court a discretion to admit fresh evidence where necessary or expedient in the interests of justice, the court declined to exercise it. No ground, new material, or proposed evidence gave rise to doubt about the safety of the convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, extension of time, and fresh-evidence application refused.
• Crown Court at Croydon: on 27 June 2022, the applicant was convicted by a jury of 12 sexual offences. He was sentenced on 11 October 2022.