R v Leon Curtis

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, leave may be refused where consideration of the grounds and supporting material reveals no properly arguable basis for saying that the conviction is unsafe. The volume of material, allegations of misconduct, proposed challenges to evidential rulings, complaints about representation, or assertions of new evidence do not themselves establish an arguable appeal. An application to call fresh evidence will likewise be refused where the proposed material does not disclose a ground capable of undermining the conviction or justifying appellate intervention.

The applicant had been convicted at the Crown Court at Reading of causing criminal damage, assault, and doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice. He was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment. A single judge refused leave to appeal on the papers.

The applicant renewed his application and sought to introduce fresh evidence. His complaints concerned, among other matters, an evidential ruling about herpes, disclosure, the conduct of the investigation and prosecution, legal representation, jury matters, the instruction of leading counsel, the summing-up, alleged abuse of process, judicial bias, and social media material. The central question was whether any of those matters disclosed an arguable ground that the convictions were unsafe or justified admitting fresh evidence.

Disposition

The renewed application for leave to appeal and the application to call fresh evidence were refused.

1. The court had considered the substantial material submitted by the applicant and agreed with the single judge that none of the arguments was properly arguable. The applicant’s further document, extending to 110 pages, did not alter that conclusion.
2. The essential issue at trial was whether the jury accepted the complainant’s evidence so that they were sure of the applicant’s guilt. The verdicts showed that the jury had accepted that evidence. The appellate court found no arguable basis for concluding that the charges had been improperly pursued or investigated, that the applicant’s representation had been incompetent, or that the trial judge had erred in her rulings or displayed bias.
3. Allegations of perjury, investigative and prosecutorial misconduct, disclosure failures, ineffective assistance, mischaracterisation of the relationship, and later conduct by the complainant did not, whether considered individually or cumulatively, establish a ground for appellate intervention on the material before the court.
4. No ground existed for allowing the proposed fresh evidence. Leave to appeal and the application to call fresh evidence were accordingly refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on renewal, refused leave to appeal and refused the application to call fresh evidence.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal: refused leave to appeal on the papers.
• Crown Court at Reading: convicted the applicant on 28 September 2023 and sentenced him to 20 months’ imprisonment on 28 February 2024.