R v Leslie Terence Housecroft

An appellate court will not re-try a defendant’s factual case or treat disagreement with a jury as showing an unsafe conviction. Intervention requires an identifiable failure in the trial process that makes the verdict unsafe. The absence of forensic evidence does not, by itself, make a sexual allegation false or a conviction unsafe, particularly where the complaint was delayed. An asserted physical inability to commit an offence must be assessed against the particular counts and the evidence. Where the issue was properly put before the jury and does not irrefutably exclude offending, it provides no arguable basis for appeal. An application made substantially out of time requires an acceptable explanation; advice that there was no ground of appeal and unsuccessful efforts to reopen the case did not justify the delay.

Following a trial at Leeds Crown Court before HHJ Belcher, the applicant was convicted on 26 March 2021 of 14 sexual offences. He was sentenced on 6 May 2021 to a 28-year special custodial sentence.

Acting in person, he renewed an application for an extension of 894 days to appeal against conviction and for permission to appeal, after both applications had been refused on the papers by Sir Nigel Davis. He argued that the allegations and witnesses were false, that there was no forensic evidence, that alleged impotence made most of the offences impossible, and that his trial counsel had acted improperly. The central issues were whether the proposed appeal was reasonably arguable on the basis that the convictions were unsafe and whether there was an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The Court of Appeal refused the extension of time and, in any event, refused permission to appeal.

1. Appellate function. An appeal is not an opportunity simply to assert innocence or reargue a partial version of the evidence. The jury assesses the evidence, finds the facts and determines guilt. The Court will interfere with a guilty verdict only if it is unsafe because something went wrong during the trial process.
2. Evidence and jury findings. The applicant’s case that the complainants and other witnesses were lying had been presented to the jury. The jury had rejected it, and the applicant had identified nothing suggesting that the verdicts were unsafe. There was no evidence that counsel had acted against him or that the conduct of the trial had rendered the convictions unsafe.
3. Forensic evidence. The argument that the absence of forensic evidence demonstrated that the allegations were false was misconceived. A truthful allegation may lack forensic corroboration, including where the complaint is made some time after the offence.
4. Alleged impotence. The issue had been fully put before the jury. It was irrelevant to counts involving sexual touching. The penetrative offences, apart from count 10, occurred before the end of April 2003, around five years before the alleged erectile dysfunction. Count 10 occurred in the second half of 2007. The evidence did not irrefutably demonstrate that the applicant could not have committed any offence, and it was for the jury to decide whether it raised reasonable doubt.
5. Delay. The applicant had been advised after trial that there were no grounds of appeal. His subsequent unsuccessful attempts to persuade his solicitors to reopen the case did not provide an acceptable reason for a delay of about two and a half years. The proposed appeal also fell far short of being reasonably arguable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 29 November 2024, the renewed application for an extension of 894 days and for permission to appeal was refused.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal: Sir Nigel Davis refused the applications on the papers.
• Leeds Crown Court: The applicant was convicted on all 14 counts on 26 March 2021 and sentenced on 6 May 2021.