Daniel Wills v R

Self-defence concerns reasonable force used against a physical attack or threat of attack. General grievance, distress or provocation arising from unrelated housing, employment, welfare or other disputes does not establish that defence. Such matters may be relevant only as background or, at most, mitigation.

A conviction is not unsafe merely because the prosecution does not call a witness where the evidence adduced proves the case, no irregularity is shown and the defence has not requested the witness. Further evidence will not be admitted where it cannot realistically bear on self-defence. Time will not be extended for an unarguable appeal after substantial delay.

Daniel Wills was convicted at Taunton Crown Court of assaulting an emergency worker after pushing a crime scene investigator at a police station. He was sentenced to a 12-month community order. He sought renewal of applications for leave to appeal, an extension of 468 days and further evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

His grounds concerned the absence of a police community support officer, distress arising from wider housing, employment and other disputes, and the conduct of officers. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed an arguable ground that the conviction was unsafe, particularly because of self-defence.

Disposition. The court refused to extend time, refused the application for further evidence and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

1. The court considered the proposed appeal as if it had been brought in time. The trial judge had allowed the applicant to explain relevant background and frustration. The judge correctly identified self-defence as the only possible defence, directed the jury on its elements and explained that the prosecution bore the burden of proof. The conviction was therefore safe.
2. Self-defence required reasonable force directed to a physical attack or threat of attack. A grievance, however genuine, or a feeling of provocation did not suffice. The applicant’s housing, employment, welfare, property and other difficulties did not indicate an attack or threat of attack at the police station, or a reasonable necessity to use force. At most, they were background or matters relevant to mitigation.
3. The failure to call PCSO Cave did not render the conviction unsafe. The prosecution was entitled to decide how to present its case, subject to a request by the applicant for her evidence. The body-worn footage and the evidence of CSI Smith proved the case, and there was no irregularity or request for an adjournment so that Cave could attend.
4. The application for further evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 was refused. The proposed evidence might have shown distress or frustration, but there was no reason to infer that it could provide a lawful excuse or evidence relevant to self-defence.
5. There was no reason to extend time after a 468-day delay. Prioritising civil disputes was inadequate, particularly where the proposed appeal had no prospect of success. The papers and oral submissions disclosed no arguable safety issue, error of principle or other compelling reason for a full appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The full court renewed and dismissed the applications for an extension of time, further evidence and leave to appeal: [2024] EWCA Crim 789.
• Taunton Crown Court: The applicant was convicted on 17 March 2022 and sentenced on 16 June 2022 to a 12-month community order.