R v JDH

On a renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, the court must consider whether the proposed grounds show that the conviction is arguably unsafe. Discrepancies concerning peripheral details will not ordinarily meet that threshold where the applicant accepts the material fact affecting credibility and the remaining evidence supports the verdict. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application because the proposed fresh evidence and other grounds did not render the convictions arguably unsafe.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne of offences involving sexual conduct with a child under 13. He received an extended sentence of imprisonment and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

After the Single Judge refused relief, he renewed his application for a 218-day extension of time, leave to appeal against conviction, leave to call fresh evidence and a representation order. He relied principally on alleged inaccuracies concerning where police found him in a house and how many times they attended. The central issue was whether those matters made the convictions arguably unsafe.

1. Applications dismissed. The court dismissed the renewed application for an extension of time and the associated application for leave to appeal against conviction. It was satisfied that the convictions were not arguably unsafe.
2. The applicant had been represented at trial by experienced counsel. The complainant gave evidence through her police interview and pre-recorded cross-examination. The jury also heard evidence from the complainant, her brother, her foster mother and a police officer. The central issue was whether the complainant was telling the truth.
3. The proposed fresh evidence concerned the precise location in which the applicant had been found by police and the number of police visits to the house. It was an agreed fact that police had attended the house, that the applicant’s mother had said he was not there, and that the applicant was then found inside. The applicant accepted that he had been found there.
4. The material significance of that evidence was its adverse effect on the applicant’s credibility, because he had stated in his defence that he did not enter the house. The precise location and precise number of visits were not materially significant when considered with the other evidence and the accepted damage to his credibility.
5. Accordingly, neither the proposed grounds nor the evidence sought to be adduced created an arguable basis for concluding that the convictions were unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 21 October 2025, the renewed application for an extension of time and associated leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 1478.
• Single Judge: The applicant’s earlier applications were refused; the date and citation were not stated in the judgment.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: The applicant was convicted on 1 August 2023 and sentenced on 11 September 2023.