R v “PG”

Shortcomings in the preparation of a criminal defence do not justify appellate intervention without a reasonably arguable causal link to the conviction. A fair trial may still result where competent trial counsel remedies earlier deficiencies, the defence presents its case, and the jury receives balanced directions.

An application to adduce fresh evidence must satisfy the criteria and procedure in section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Evidence available at trial without good reason, or evidence whose potential assistance is unclear, will not normally qualify. A very late application will not be extended where there are no reasonably arguable grounds and extension would not serve the interests of justice.

The applicant had been convicted at the Crown Court at Lewes of multiple historical sexual offences involving three complainants. He renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction after a single judge refused leave. He relied on alleged deficiencies in the preparation of his defence, criticisms made by the Legal Ombudsman, proposed fresh evidence, and delay in bringing the application. The Court of Appeal considered whether any ground was reasonably arguable, whether the proposed evidence could be admitted, and whether time should be extended.

Disposition. The Court of Appeal refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. It also refused the application to adduce fresh evidence and the application to extend time.

1. Preparation of the defence and fairness of the trial. The court adopted the detailed reasons given by the single judge. The applicant’s competent barrister had cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, obtained admission of relevant bad character evidence, reviewed the previously unavailable USB material after the first jury was discharged, and presented the applicant’s case. The trial judge’s summing-up was balanced and properly addressed delay, memory and assumptions. Although the solicitors’ preparation had been criticised, there was no reasonably arguable causal link between those shortcomings and the guilty verdicts. The mixed verdicts also supported the conclusion that the jury considered the evidence independently.
2. Fresh evidence. Under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the proposed evidence did not satisfy the statutory criteria or the correct procedure. The address records, bail records and proposed witness evidence could have been obtained for trial without good reason for the earlier omission. In any event, the court was not satisfied that the material would have assisted the appeal.
3. Delay. The application was lodged 1,768 days late. Even allowing for the applicant’s explanations, the absence of reasonably arguable grounds meant that extending time was not in the interests of justice. The court also noted the inevitable additional distress to the complainants.
4. Other matters. The applicant’s alleged connection with Mr Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, was irrelevant because there was no evidence that it affected the outcome. The issue at trial was whether the complainants’ allegations were proved.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed leave to appeal against conviction refused; applications to adduce fresh evidence and extend time also refused, [2024] EWCA Crim 1420.
• Single judge: application for leave to appeal refused.
• Crown Court at Lewes: conviction on 16 February 2018 before Mr Recorder Lawson-Rogers.