R v DCB

On a late application for leave to appeal, the court may examine the proposed grounds despite delay. Unsupported and generalised complaints about representatives do not establish an arguable unsafe conviction, particularly when refuted by those representatives. Previous sexual convictions may be admitted as bad-character evidence under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where they demonstrate a sexual interest in children and non-consensual offending, absent unfair prejudice. Probation officers may obtain prosecution material when preparing reports; that step alone does not show bias. Bail conditions causing employment difficulties may provide slight mitigation but do not make a serious extended sentence manifestly excessive.

The applicant was convicted after two trials of robbery, sexual activity with children, rape, assault by penetration and related offences. He received a determinate sentence for robbery followed by a global extended sentence for the sexual offending.

He applied out of time for leave to appeal his convictions and sentence, together with bail and representation orders. The single judge refused the applications. The central issues were whether complaints about legal representatives and unused material disclosed unsafe convictions, whether convictions from the first trial were wrongly admitted at the second trial, and whether alleged probation-service bias, bail conditions and the finding of dangerousness rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.

All applications were refused. The court agreed with the single judge that the lengthy delays, particularly in raising criticisms of representatives, affected the credibility of those complaints. It nevertheless considered each ground to decide whether there was an arguable case that a conviction was unsafe or a sentence manifestly excessive.

1. At Trial 1, the complaints that representatives had withheld unused material, were too close to the prosecution, or had failed to act in the applicant’s interests were unsupported, highly generalised and refuted by the representatives. The material relied on consisted of an asserted message which was not supported by documentary evidence. None of the complaints disclosed an arguable basis for finding the trial unfair or the convictions unsafe.
2. At Trial 2, the convictions from Trial 1 were properly admitted under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. They demonstrated a sexual interest in female children and a preparedness to engage in sexual activity regardless of consent. There was no credible basis for contending that their admission was legally wrong or unfairly prejudicial.
3. The alleged bias of the probation officers was unsupported. Seeking material from the prosecution when preparing pre-sentence reports was proper and usually necessary. The judge’s finding of dangerousness was supported by the offending itself and by the reports.
4. Time spent on bail under extensive conditions, including frequent signing requirements and resulting employment difficulties, provided no more than very slight mitigation. Given the seriousness and context of the offending, particularly against younger female family members, the finding of dangerousness was inevitable and the overall sentence was not remotely excessive.

The applications for extensions of time, leave to appeal conviction and sentence, bail and representation orders were therefore refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 11 September 2025, the court refused all applications for extensions of time, leave to appeal conviction and sentence, bail and representation orders: [2025] EWCA Crim 1253.
2. Crown Court at Birmingham and Wolverhampton — The applicant pleaded guilty to robbery and failure to surrender at Wolverhampton, was convicted after two trials at Birmingham, and was sentenced at Birmingham on 31 January 2023 by HHJ Henderson.