R v Darren Hillman

A conviction will not be unsafe merely because a defendant was low in mood, distressed or engaged in self-harm during trial. The appellate court must assess whether the available material shows confusion or impaired functioning sufficient to prevent fair participation in the trial process.

Relevant safeguards include a contemporaneous assessment of fitness, the trial judge’s response to welfare concerns, the absence of a raised inability to give evidence or obtain further evidence, and indications that the defendant could communicate and participate. A later psychiatric report must materially support the alleged impairment before it can show that the trial was unfair or the conviction unsafe.

The applicant was convicted unanimously at Lewes Crown Court on 5 September 2023 of nine counts of indecency with a child and two counts of indecent assault. He was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment.

The prosecution relied principally on the two complainants’ accounts of historic sexual abuse and on the applicant’s earlier convictions for offences against one complainant. The applicant denied the allegations but did not give evidence.

He renewed an application for permission to appeal against conviction after a single judge had refused it. He contended that his confused state, low mood and incidents of self-harm during trial had made the convictions unsafe. The central issue was whether his condition had rendered the trial unfair or prevented effective participation.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. There was no material capable of showing that the applicant’s condition during trial had made the process unfair or the convictions unsafe.

2. The court considered the actual conduct of the trial. When defence counsel initially raised mental-health concerns, the judge arranged a psychiatric-nurse assessment. It found that, although the applicant was low in mood, he was fit to plead. The judge also remanded him in custody for his safety and addressed a later welfare concern about access to a shower.

3. No issue was raised at trial about the applicant’s ability to give evidence. Nor was an application made to call evidence about matters said to have arisen between him and counsel after a prosecution witness had testified. The applicant was able to raise an issue concerning his antecedents with counsel, which counsel then placed before the court. That was an indication that he could participate properly in the proceedings.

4. The application to discharge the jury after the second incident of self-harm was made after all evidence and disclosure had been completed. The sentencing psychiatric report did not support autistic spectrum disorder or a level of impaired mental functioning that could establish an unsafe conviction. Obtaining such a report before, or during, trial would not therefore have assisted the applicant in relation to the trial process.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applicant’s renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction was refused in [2025] EWCA Crim 477.
• Crown Court at Lewes: The applicant was convicted unanimously on 5 September 2023 of nine counts of indecency with a child and two counts of indecent assault, and was subsequently sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment.