R v Leon Hunt

On a renewed application to extend time for seeking leave to appeal against criminal convictions, an extension should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable basis that the convictions are unsafe and the appeal has no prospects of success. Unsupported assertions of unlawful evidence-gathering or non-disclosure do not establish an arguable ground. A direct conflict in evidence remains for the jury where relevant evidence was placed before it and proper directions were given. A complaint of incompetent representation is unarguable where the trial materials show competent preparation, presentation of the evidence and no resulting disadvantage.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Nottingham of four counts of rape of a child under 13 and two counts of assault of a child under 13 by penetration. The offences occurred during the same month in 2009 and involved the same complainant. He received a special custodial sentence of 14 years.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application and sought an extension of 1,744 days. He alleged unlawful acquisition of evidence, non-disclosure, inadequate presentation of evidence, shortcomings in medical evidence, and incompetent representation. The central issue was whether any of those complaints disclosed an arguable basis that the convictions were unsafe and justified extending time.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), in a judgment given by Mr Justice Soole, refused the application to extend time. No purpose would be served by granting the very long extension sought because the proposed appeal had no prospects of success.

1. The allegations that evidence had been obtained unlawfully or that potentially relevant unused material had not been disclosed were unsupported assertions. They disclosed no arguable ground.
2. The alleged continuing relationship between the applicant and the complainant, including the complainant’s visits to the family home and the sleeping arrangements, had been fully addressed at trial. There was therefore no arguable basis that those matters had been omitted from the jury’s consideration.
3. The medical evidence had been properly addressed. The prosecution and defence experts produced a joint report and agreed that there was no expert consensus on the weight to be given to a notch or defect in the hymen in a case of alleged sexual abuse. Counsel’s decision to place the agreed expert conclusions in an Agreed Facts document was not arguably incompetent.
4. The applicant’s relevant evidence had been placed before the jury. Counsel’s preparation notes and trial materials showed competent and focused representation. Although counsel attended hospital with his young daughter during the second day of trial, he returned at the time indicated and the applicant suffered no disadvantage.
5. The judge gave appropriate legal directions and a fair summary of the rival evidence. The jury was required to decide whether the prosecution had made it sure that the complainant’s account was correct. There was no basis to doubt the safety of any conviction.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): following refusal by a single judge, the renewed application for an extension of time of 1,744 days was refused. The court held that the proposed appeal had no prospects of success: [2025] EWCA Crim 1545.
2. Crown Court at Nottingham: the applicant was convicted on 20 March 2019 and sentenced to a total special custodial sentence of 14 years.