R v FCD

On a renewed application brought 163 days out of time, the Court of Appeal refused an extension where review of the trial material disclosed no justiciable ground against conviction. Complaints about representation, witness inconsistencies, evidence, indirect contact involving a solicitor’s secretary and judicial bias did not make the conviction unsafe. Inconsistencies between witnesses are ordinarily matters for the jury. Previous good character must be taken into account in sentencing, but an offence-specific guideline may prevent it receiving undue weight. A sentence will not be interfered with unless wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

Following a jury trial at the Crown Court at Lincoln before HHJ House KC on 20 March 2023, the applicant was convicted of sexual offences against two children and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. He sought an extension of 163 days to renew an application for leave to appeal against conviction, alleging an unfair trial and deficiencies in representation, evidence and judicial conduct. He also challenged the length of sentence and the treatment of his previous good character. The central questions were whether the interests of justice required an extension, whether any conviction ground was justiciable, and whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The court considered the grounds concerning both conviction and sentence.

1. Extension of time and conviction. The court considered whether it was in the interests of justice to extend time. After examining the grounds, the responses, the summing-up and the other material, it found no justiciable ground of appeal against conviction. The extension was therefore refused and leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
2. Fair trial complaints. The late replacement of counsel did not establish unfairness. The new barrister was experienced and had had sufficient time to prepare. The second complainant’s recorded interview had been played to the jury. Inconsistencies between witnesses were recognised as an ordinary feature of criminal trials and did not themselves establish an unsafe conviction; the question was whether the jury accepted the evidence. The alleged indirect contact between a solicitor’s firm secretary and a witness disclosed no basis for concluding that the conviction was unsafe. The summing-up disclosed no judicial bias.
3. Sentence. The sentencing judge had taken the applicant’s previous good character into account. Under the offence-specific guideline, it was not necessary to give that factor undue weight. A sentence of nine years for the offending against the two complainants in their home could not sensibly be described as wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
4. Orders. The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction was refused. No ground of appeal against sentence was identified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2025] EWCA Crim 1184: refused the renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, and found no ground of appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Lincoln: following conviction before HHJ House KC on 20 March 2023, the applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.