R v Lee Hammill

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, the question is whether the conviction is arguably unsafe. A summing-up must be read fairly and as a whole. An isolated, corrected expression which appears to align the judge with the prosecution will not establish fundamental imbalance where the jury were properly directed on the issues, the evidence and the defence case.

Deficiencies in arrangements for an intermediary, including the timing of a ground rules hearing, require examination of their practical effect on the accused's ability to give evidence and on the safety of the conviction. Grounds advanced separately must also be assessed cumulatively.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at St Albans of offences including rape of a child under 13, sexual assault by penetration, and sexual activity with a child. He received a total sentence of 12 years.

His application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused by a single judge. He renewed it before the Court of Appeal. He alleged that the Recorder's summing-up was biased or unhelpfully diffuse, that arrangements for his intermediary were inadequate, and that the prosecution had improperly cross-examined its own witnesses. The central question was whether those matters, individually or cumulatively, made the convictions arguably unsafe.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The relevant question was whether the convictions were arguably unsafe.

2. The summing-up did not usurp the jury's role. Read fairly and as a whole, it identified what the prosecution had to prove on each count, directed the jury by reference to the Route to Verdict, reminded them of the applicant's good character, and set out both the complainant's and the applicant's evidence. The Recorder's single use of the expression “we suggest” was unfortunate, but was corrected and did not make the summing-up fundamentally biased or unhelpfully diffuse.

3. Intermediaries perform an important function in enabling vulnerable witnesses to give their best evidence. A ground rules hearing should enable proper preparation and arrangements for that assistance. Here, although it was held shortly before the applicant gave evidence, it identified and secured the relevant measures, including breaks, short and specific questions, common language, processing time and a slower pace. There was no evidential basis for saying that the applicant had been unable to give his evidence, that the intermediary had been overruled, or that the refusal of a late requested break had caused difficulty.

4. The Crown's re-examination of the complainant's mother left matters for the jury's assessment. The disputed timing of the complainant's move from the family home could not affect the safety of the convictions, whether or not the question should have been asked.

5. Considering all four grounds cumulatively did not alter that conclusion. None gave rise to an arguable case that the convictions were unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 519, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at St Albans: On 17 April 2023, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to a total of 12 years' imprisonment.