R v Jordan Thomas Campbell

Fresh evidence may be received under section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 only where it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. The court must in particular consider its apparent credibility, whether it may afford a ground for allowing the appeal, admissibility, and any reasonable explanation for its earlier absence.

A post-trial communication which does not retract the trial account, and is materially contradicted by a later explanation from its author, will not ordinarily provide an arguable basis for challenging the safety of a conviction.

The applicant sought renewed permission to appeal against convictions for rape and strangulation after a single judge had refused permission. He relied on an email sent by the complainant after trial, which he said supported his account that sexual intercourse had been consensual.

The complainant subsequently confirmed to police that her trial evidence was truthful. She said that the email had been written while she was vulnerable and under the applicant’s influence. The applicant also invited the court to take account of the trial judge’s ruling under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 concerning previous sexual behaviour evidence.

The central issue was whether the email was fresh evidence capable of founding an arguable appeal against the safety of the convictions.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal, and the applications for extensions of time, were refused. Although the applicant had a reasonable explanation for not adducing the post-trial email at trial, the court was not satisfied that it arguably afforded grounds for allowing an appeal under section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

2. The email did not withdraw the complainant’s trial evidence or assert that she had misled the court. Even taken at face value, it only expressed uncertainty over whether the applicant had asked for, and she had agreed to, makeup sex. It said nothing retracting the evidence of strangulation.

3. The court found no reason to disregard the complainant’s later police statement. In that statement, she reaffirmed the truth of her trial evidence and explained that the earlier email had been sent after the applicant had manipulated her while she was vulnerable.

4. The court also considered the section 41 issue as context. It appeared that the applicant had, in his own evidence, told the jury about prior occasions of makeup sex and strangulation. Thus, the material he wished the jury to know had in fact been adduced. Agreeing independently with the single judge, the court concluded that there was no arguable ground of appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction refused: [2024] EWCA Crim 159.
• Crown Court: following trial in February 2023, the applicant was convicted of rape and strangulation. On 4 May 2023, he received an extended sentence of 15 years and an indefinite restraining order.
• Single judge: the original application for permission to appeal against conviction was refused.