R v MAK

Applications for extensions of time, permission to appeal against conviction and sentence, and leave to adduce fresh evidence were refused. Fresh evidence must have real probative value and address issues decided at trial. Evidence merely expressing family members’ disbelief, or suggesting limited opportunity without showing no opportunity, adds little. Evidence available at trial, without a cogent explanation for its absence, will not support a renewed appeal application. A pre-sentence report recommendation is not binding where the proposed disposal would be unlawful or wholly inappropriate. A sentence within the applicable guideline range will not be disturbed where it is neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive and the judge has considered relevant mitigation.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Birmingham on 18 August 2023 of sexual offences against his stepdaughter and was sentenced on 15 December 2023 to seven years’ imprisonment. A single judge refused applications concerning extensions of time and permission to appeal. The applicant renewed those applications before the Court of Appeal and sought to adduce fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

The proposed conviction grounds concerned editing of the complainant’s ABE interview, the presence of her social worker as appropriate adult, evidence from family members, and an alleged retraction. The sentence grounds concerned a recommendation for suspension and alleged failure to consider health and caring responsibilities. The central issues were whether the conviction was unsafe, whether the proposed evidence could assist, and whether the sentence disclosed an arguable error.

The Court of Appeal refused the applications.

1. Conviction. The court agreed with the single judge that the complaints about editing the ABE interview and the social worker’s attendance as appropriate adult were unarguable. The full interview transcripts were available at trial, including the edited material and exchanges involving the social worker. The complainant was vulnerable because of learning disabilities, autism and ADHD, and the social worker’s evidence had been tested in cross-examination.
2. The four proposed witnesses were family members who mainly said that they did not believe the complainant. That evidence had no relevance or probative value, since credibility was for the jury. Evidence suggesting limited opportunities to offend was weak because it did not establish that there had been no opportunity. The proposed witnesses gave no specific evidence about the offences proved and the opportunity point had already been explored at trial. They had been available at trial, and no cogent explanation had been provided for their absence. The proposed evidence therefore added nothing of probative value.
3. The alleged retraction did not assist the applicant. The complainant had confirmed to police that her original complaints were true. The further police report indicated that the recording relied on had been made under pressure and from words written by one of the applicant’s daughters.
4. Sentence. Taking count 1 as the most serious offence, imposing seven years for it while taking the other criminal conduct into account, and imposing concurrent two-year terms on the remaining counts was the correct approach. The sentence accorded with the relevant guideline. A pre-sentence report recommendation did not require a suspended sentence where that disposal would have been unlawful or wholly inappropriate. The sentencing judge had considered mitigation, including the effects of the offending on the applicant’s family. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
5. Extensions of time. The lengthy extensions sought were refused because the applications disclosed no sufficient basis for granting them. Renewed permission to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused, as was the application to adduce the proposed fresh evidence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 10 July 2025, the renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused, as were the extensions of time and the application concerning fresh evidence: [2025] EWCA Crim 1138.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: The applicant was convicted on 18 August 2023 and sentenced on 15 December 2023 to seven years’ imprisonment.