R v Jonathan Jackson

An extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction should not be granted where the proposed grounds have no substance and the conviction is plainly safe. Unsupported allegations about witnesses, forensic material, jury bias, legal representation or judicial unfairness do not justify an appeal. Speculation cannot replace an evidential basis. Evidence properly placed before the jury, including agreed expert evidence, remains for the jury’s evaluation. Where appropriate, the jury may take into account an accused’s decision not to give evidence. Once the Court of Appeal is satisfied that the conviction is safe, granting an extension serves no purpose.

The applicant was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and acquitted of affray. After a single judge refused permission, he renewed his application for a 99-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal. The proposed grounds concerned absent witnesses, alleged evidential tampering, forensic evidence, jury bias, alleged incompetence by his legal representatives, judicial bias and the presentation of medical evidence. The central issue was whether any ground had substance sufficient to justify an extension and call the safety of the conviction into question.

1. Application refused. Having reviewed the material, including responses from the applicant’s trial lawyers and the prosecution, the court was satisfied that none of the proposed grounds had substance and that there was no doubt about the safety of the conviction.
2. The complaints about absent witnesses, alleged tampering with evidence, forensic testing and jury bias were unsupported. The absence of one witness was to the applicant’s benefit. Another potential witness had made no statement, and the suggestion that he had interfered with evidence was speculation. There was no evidential basis for alleging that body-worn footage had been tampered with, that the forensic evidence concerning the jacket was unreliable, or that jurors recognised or were biased against the applicant.
3. The allegations of incompetent representation were not substantiated. The applicant had approved his defence case statement and had known before trial that counsel would change. There was no basis for alleging judicial bias or unfairness. The summing-up was fair and accurate, and the two-day trial was explained by the complainant’s death, the applicant’s decision not to give evidence and the admission of the medical opinion as agreed facts.
4. The medical evidence, including the characteristics of the injury and the absence of blood on the drill tip, was before the jury. It was for the jury to decide what weight to give that evidence when determining whether it was sure of guilt. Its presence did not render the conviction unsafe.
5. The jury was also entitled, if it considered it appropriate, to draw an adverse inference from the applicant’s decision not to give evidence. Since the conviction was safe, no purpose would be served by granting the extension of time.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2025] EWCA Crim 1604, the renewed application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal was refused.
• Crown Court at Birmingham — The applicant was convicted on 27 June 2024 of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and acquitted of affray.