R v WDU

An extension of time to seek leave to appeal conviction serves no purpose where the proposed grounds have no arguable merit. The court may consider a lengthy extension if an arguable ground exists, but should refuse it where the complaints merely seek to reopen trial issues. Credibility matters explored at trial, general complaints about representation, alleged inconsistency between verdicts on counts supported by different evidence, and jury composition do not, without more, establish an arguable ground of appeal.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Oxford of six counts of indecent assault and two counts of rape, and was sentenced to a special custodial sentence of 16 years. He sought an extension of 444 days to apply for leave to appeal conviction, together with a representation order. His grounds concerned the complainant’s credibility, trial representation, the prosecution case and the jury. A single judge refused leave, concluding that the grounds were not arguable. The Court of Appeal considered whether the extension should be granted and whether any proposed ground justified appellate consideration.

1. Application and appeal. The application for an extension of time was refused and the appeal was dismissed. Although the court would have considered granting the very lengthy extension sought if the grounds had any arguable merit, there was no purpose in extending time where they had none.
2. Credibility and trial issues. Complaints about the complainant’s credibility, including alleged untruthful or inaccurate answers, were matters for the trial. They had been available for cross-examination and could not simply be argued all over again on appeal. General complaints that trial counsel was unprepared or failed to ask relevant questions were unsupported by the material, which showed that counsel had been instructed in good time and properly prepared.
3. Other proposed grounds. The prosecution case was based on direct evidence, not merely hearsay. The presence of eight women on the jury afforded no ground of appeal. Nor did convictions on some counts and acquittals on others demonstrate inconsistency or illogicality where the evidence differed between counts. Complaints about witnesses, the abandoned first trial and other matters did not identify an arguable appellate error.
4. The court respectfully agreed with the single judge’s assessment and added nothing material. The reporting restriction under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 was noted, and the complainant was referred to as C.

• Crown Court at Oxford: The applicant was convicted on 10 March 2023 and sentenced on 19 May 2023.
• Single judge: Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were not arguable.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The extension of time was refused and the appeal was dismissed.