R v JAH

On an application for leave to appeal against conviction, the question is whether it is reasonably arguable that the conviction was unsafe, including whether there is a lurking doubt about its safety. The Court of Appeal assesses each alleged error and their combined effect in the context of the trial as a whole. An alleged procedural or evidential irregularity will not undermine a conviction where it caused no disadvantage or could not realistically have affected the verdict. The strength and consistency of the prosecution case remain relevant to the safety assessment. Leave should be refused where, individually or cumulatively, the grounds do not make the conviction unsafe.

The applicant was convicted at Gloucester Crown Court of four counts of sexual assault of a child under 13, contrary to s.7(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He received a suspended sentence order comprising a custodial term, unpaid work, rehabilitation requirement days and prosecution costs.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction after a single judge refused leave. The grounds concerned the suitability of the courtroom, service and formulation of the charges, an inadmissible letter, handwriting evidence, prosecution closing submissions, the jury bundle and the failure to call a teacher. The central issue was whether any ground, considered individually or collectively, made the convictions unsafe.

Disposition and reasoning

1. Leave refused. The court held that leave to appeal against conviction is granted where it is reasonably arguable that the conviction was unsafe. The court looks for a lurking doubt about the safety of the conviction.
2. The safety of the convictions had to be assessed by considering the grounds individually and collectively. The alleged courtroom difficulties caused no arguable unfairness because no participant complained of being unable to hear or follow the proceedings. The charges were consistently identified under s.7(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
3. The notice of criminal charge had been forwarded to the applicant and was received in sufficient time. The short delay caused no disadvantage, delay or prejudice. The letter produced by the applicant was inadmissible hearsay because its author was not called as a witness. The judge was therefore entitled to warn the applicant not to refer to it before the jury.
4. The judge’s answer to the jury’s handwriting question was factually accurate. The defence had chosen not to rely on its expert report because it assisted the prosecution case. The relevant admissible documents were included in the jury bundle. There were good reasons not to call the applicant’s former partner, and the teacher’s evidence, even if available, would not have affected the result.
5. The prosecutor’s reference to his own psycho switch was curious but was not a reference to the applicant and caused no safety concern. Standing back, the prosecution case was strong, with consistent accounts from both complainants and supporting notebook evidence. The jury had the defence case of fabrication before it and was entitled to accept the prosecution evidence. None of the grounds, individually or cumulatively, made the convictions unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction on 9 July 2025: [2025] EWCA Crim 1020.
• Single judge: refused the initial application for leave to appeal.
• Gloucester Crown Court: convicted the applicant on 11 April 2024 and sentenced him on 9 May 2024.