R v Darren Hill

On an appeal against conviction, points that were available to be explored before the jury and invite re-evaluation of the evidence do not ordinarily amount to arguable grounds. Evidence of previous convictions may be admitted where it bears on a live issue such as who initiated sexual activity and whether an account was fabricated, provided the jury is directed on its proper use. A conviction is not unsafe merely because potentially helpful dressing-gown or CCTV evidence was not obtained when the issue could have been explored at trial and the jury had sufficient other evidence. Where no arguable ground is shown, there is no purpose in extending time to renew an application for leave to appeal.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Lewes of assault by penetration contrary to section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment. He sought a three-month extension of time to renew an application for a further 512-day extension for leave to appeal against conviction, following refusal by a single judge.

His proposed grounds challenged the admission of previous convictions for exposure, the failure to recover a dressing gown, and the adequacy of CCTV and other evidence concerning the complainant’s condition. The central issues were whether any proposed ground was arguable and, if not, whether time should be extended.

1. Applications refused. The court considered all the proposed grounds and correspondence. It found no arguable ground of appeal. Since an extension of time would serve no purpose in those circumstances, all applications were refused.
2. The trial judge was entitled to admit evidence of the applicant’s previous convictions for exposure. The source of the sexual activity and the truthfulness of the competing accounts were important issues. The jury could properly consider whether the complainant’s allegation that the applicant had exposed himself was coincidental, given that she could not have known of his convictions for similar conduct. The judge gave appropriate directions, including that the convictions did not make it more likely that the applicant had committed the assault by penetration.
3. The alleged failure to recover the complainant’s dressing gown was a matter that could have been explored at trial, including through the applicant’s own evidence. In any event, the court was not persuaded that the gown would have had the significance claimed.
4. The absence of further CCTV footage did not make the conviction unsafe. The jury had other evidence concerning the complainant’s condition, including existing garage footage, toxicological evidence, her NHS 111 call, body-worn video, and the applicant’s own account.
5. Other matters, including uncertainty about whether penetration was by a finger or penis and the complainant’s continued presence at the flat, were matters for the jury. They did not provide arguable appellate grounds.
6. The court recorded that reporting restrictions applied under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, subject to waiver or lifting under section 3.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 8 August 2025, the court refused the applications for extensions of time and found no arguable grounds for an appeal against conviction: [2025] EWCA Crim 1155.
• Crown Court at Lewes: On 28 July 2022, HHJ Huseyin convicted the applicant of assault by penetration contrary to section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and sentenced him to six years and six months’ imprisonment.