R v Marek Woroniecki

Evidence said to be new cannot found an arguable challenge to the safety of a conviction where its substance was already before the jury and it would add nothing to the evidence considered at trial. Challenges to the physical possibility of the complainant’s account are matters for the jury where they were entitled to be sure on the evidence. A proposed alternative perpetrator allegation does not make a conviction arguably unsafe when it was not put to the relevant witnesses or advanced in the defendant’s trial evidence.

The applicant was convicted at Cambridge Crown Court on 11 August 2023 of two counts of rape, controlling or coercive behaviour, intentional suffocation and two assaults arising from conduct towards his partner.

He sought a 232-day extension of time and renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction after the single judge had refused leave. His principal ground relied on alleged admissions by the complainant during later family-court proceedings concerning use of his money and alcohol consumption. He also raised complaints concerning the physical possibility of the assaults and an allegation that another witness was responsible for violence or rape.

The central issue was whether any ground gave rise to an arguable case that the convictions were unsafe.

1. The court refused the extension of time and the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. The applicant’s lack of English and his reliance on others for assistance did not provide a good reason for a delay of 232 days. The court nevertheless considered the proposed appeal on its merits.
2. The alleged family-court evidence was not new in any material sense. The jury had the relevant bank records, the complainant’s evidence about use of the applicant’s money, and the applicant’s case on that issue. They also had agreed forensic evidence of the complainant’s alcohol consumption, which the Recorder addressed in the summing-up. The proposed material would therefore have added nothing and could not arguably make the convictions unsafe.
3. The claim that the complainant’s account was physically impossible was for the jury. The applicant gave evidence and could have relied on any asserted health condition bearing on his ability to commit the offences. No significant health issue appeared in the pre-sentence report. That ground was not arguable.
4. The alternative allegation against A was not put to either the complainant or A in cross-examination, and was not advanced in the applicant’s evidence. Both relevant witnesses gave evidence and were cross-examined; it was not for the trial judge to call and interview them. This ground also disclosed no arguable basis to challenge the convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the application to extend time and refused renewed leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Cambridge: On 11 August 2023, convicted the applicant of two counts of rape, controlling or coercive behaviour, intentional suffocation and two assaults.