R v Brian Robert Saunders

A conviction is not rendered unsafe by asserted failures, procedural irregularities, evidential imbalance or cumulative defects unless there is evidence that they affected the safety of the verdict. Where expert evidence is materially consistent and does not advance the defence, failure to call an additional expert does not establish an unsafe conviction. A complaint about identification evidence has no material force where identity is not genuinely in issue and the real question is whether the defendant committed the alleged assault.

Following a trial before HHJ Mallett and a jury at Newcastle Crown Court, the applicant was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent on 29 November 2023 and sentenced to three years and nine months' imprisonment on 24 January 2024. The sentence was not challenged.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by a single judge. He alleged failures by his legal team, deficiencies in expert evidence, judicial misdirection, apparent bias, procedural irregularities, evidential imbalance and an identification issue. The central question was whether any of those matters, individually or cumulatively, rendered the conviction unsafe.

Disposition

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. It found nothing which rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Expert evidence. The applicant complained that his legal team had failed to call Dr Bolton, who was unavailable at trial. A joint expert statement showed no material difference between the experts. The evidence made the applicant's account unlikely, although not impossible, and the failure to call the additional expert took the matter no further forward.
2. Directions and conduct. The trial judge gave proper conventional directions concerning the limitations of expert evidence. The material disclosed no basis for concluding that the judge had acted improperly or with apparent bias. The summing-up fairly presented the respective cases to the jury.
3. Procedure and evidence. The alleged procedural irregularities had not affected the safety of the verdict. There was no evidential imbalance. Nor was there evidence of failures which, whether considered individually or cumulatively, rendered the conviction unsafe.
4. Identification issue. A statement in video evidence that the witness had not seen the applicant but that two young men had seen him drive away did not raise a material identification issue. It was apparent that there had been an altercation between the complainant and the applicant and that the complainant had suffered serious injuries. The issue was whether the applicant had inflicted those injuries as alleged.

Having considered all the grounds, the summing-up, the complaints against counsel and counsel's response, the court refused leave to appeal against conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused on 4 July 2025.
• Newcastle Crown Court: following conviction after trial on 29 November 2023, the applicant was sentenced on 24 January 2024.