R v Dirk Howell

At the permission stage, a proposed criminal appeal must identify a ground that is reasonably arguable. A conviction is not rendered unsafe merely because the precise cause of death cannot be established where alternative hypotheses were fully explored, the jury received comprehensive directions, and no further reasonable testing or adjournment was identified. Co-defendants may properly receive different verdicts where the jury is directed to consider each case separately and the evidence permits different conclusions. A renewed application will be refused where, after reviewing the papers and trial evidence, none of the proposed grounds is reasonably arguable.

The applicant pleaded guilty to four counts of cruelty to a child and was later convicted by a jury of murder. He received a life sentence with a minimum term of 32 years. His partner, who was tried alongside him, was convicted of manslaughter and cruelty to children.

The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal. He challenged the inability to establish the precise cause of death, the possibility of an epileptic fit, the different verdicts, the reliability and provenance of child witnesses’ evidence, the admission of certain prosecution evidence, and the quality of his legal representation. The Single Judge refused permission, concluding that none of the proposed grounds was reasonably arguable. The issue before the Court was whether that conclusion should be revisited.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Green, giving the judgment of the court, agreed unreservedly with the Single Judge that the proposed grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable.
2. The precise cause of death was unknown, but the jury had heard the competing hypotheses, including epilepsy, together with the medical and expert evidence. No further testing could reasonably have been expected, and the defence had not sought an adjournment for that purpose. The jury had been directed comprehensively on causation, unlawful force and the mental element of murder. The complaint that the jury must therefore have speculated did not provide an arguable ground.
3. The different verdicts returned against the applicant and his partner did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice. The jury had been directed to examine each defendant’s case separately, and the evidence permitted different conclusions as to each defendant’s responsibility.
4. The challenges to the child witnesses’ evidence, alleged coercion and corrupt payments, and the admission of evidence said to bolster a weak circumstantial case had been fully canvassed at trial. The Court agreed that the evidence as a whole, including evidence of the applicant’s routine violence towards the victim and other children, did not support the characterisation of the case as weak. The complaint about representation was also raised without a privilege waiver permitting disclosure of protected material.
5. The application was 410 days out of time. Since permission was refused because the grounds were unarguable, the Court did not need to decide whether permission would also have been refused on the basis of delay.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — renewed application for permission to appeal refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 1861.
• Crown Court at Worcester (Wall J) — the applicant was convicted of murder after trial and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 32 years, alongside concurrent sentences for cruelty to children.