R v Elliot Matthew Rowley

An application to extend time for seeking permission to appeal against conviction may be refused where the applicant gives no proper explanation for substantial delay and the proposed grounds disclose no arguable basis for finding the convictions unsafe. A renewed non-counsel application does not warrant permission where the court’s own review of the papers confirms that the asserted investigative, witness, expert-evidence and alternative-perpetrator points lack merit.

The applicant was convicted at Winchester Crown Court of three counts of rape of a child under 13 and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13. He received an extended determinate sentence of 29 years, comprising 25 years’ custody and a four-year extension period.

After the single judge refused permission on the papers, the unrepresented applicant renewed his application. He sought an extension of 392 days to apply for permission to appeal against conviction. His grounds alleged inadequate investigation of an asserted alibi, manipulation or coercion between the complainants, a need for further medical review, and possible responsibility of another person.

The central issues were whether the delay should be extended and whether any ground rendered the convictions arguably unsafe.

1. The court refused both the extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction. Having independently reviewed the papers and the applicant’s points, the court fully agreed with the single judge that none of the grounds had merit.
2. The asserted alibi ground was undermined by the contradiction identified by the single judge. The applicant had advanced inconsistent positions as to whether the alleged friend and birthday party existed, without explaining his case.
3. The allegations that one complainant had lied to, coerced or manipulated the other disclosed no arguable point. Both complainants had been cross-examined in detail at trial.
4. There was no basis for a further review of the paediatrician’s evidence. That evidence had been tested by cross-examination and was fairly and accurately summarised in the summing-up.
5. The jury knew of the investigation concerning the other individual, but the applicant identified no basis for suggesting that person committed the offences of conviction. The court was also unpersuaded that the applicant had given a proper explanation for failing to commence the appeal in time.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed non-counsel application refused in [2024] EWCA Crim 1283. The court refused an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction.
• Winchester Crown Court: The applicant was convicted on 31 May 2022 and sentenced on 14 November 2022.