R v Anthony John Hemmings

The Court of Appeal will not interfere with a jury verdict merely because a defendant disputes witness credibility. Intervention requires a material misdirection on law or other unfairness in the conduct of the trial. Evidence that a complainant made earlier complaints, when relied on as proof of false allegations, is bad character evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 100. Without an evidential basis, an application to admit it would fail. Decisions whether to call witnesses involve assessment of relevance, admissibility and tactical interests. Failure to call witnesses who have no relevant and admissible evidence does not establish an arguable ground of appeal.

Following a jury trial at Bristol Crown Court, the applicant was convicted of five sexual offences involving two complainants and sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment. He filed a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, together with an application for an extension of time. A single judge had refused leave on the papers.

The proposed grounds concerned the admission of evidence about one complainant’s previous complaints, decisions not to call or obtain statements from various witnesses, the reading of hearsay evidence from the mother of the second complainant, and alleged defects in the complainants’ evidence. The central issues were whether any proposed ground had a realistic prospect of success and whether the trial had been materially unfair.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal and the application for an extension of time were refused. The court considered the application afresh but reached the same conclusion as the single judge.
2. The proposed evidence that C1 had made previous complaints about other men was not evidence of other sexual activity. It was intended to show that she had previously made false allegations. It therefore amounted to proposed bad character evidence under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. There was no evidential basis for an application, and the application would have failed if pursued at trial.
3. The decision whether to call DL and JM required professional assessment of the relevance of their evidence and whether calling them was in the applicant’s tactical interests. The applicant accepted advice that calling them was risky, and nothing suggested that the advice was wrong. The proposed ground consequently had no real prospect of success.
4. The issue for the jury was whether they were sure that the complainants were telling the truth. The applicant’s wife and children had no relevant and admissible evidence on that issue. The decision not to call them was therefore correct.
5. The remaining grounds challenged the jury’s assessment of the complainants’ credibility. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with a jury verdict unless there has been a material misdirection on a question of law or other unfairness in the conduct of the trial. The hearsay evidence of C2’s mother had been admitted without opposition, and the jury had received proper directions about its assessment. No material unfairness or legal misdirection was shown.

• Crown Court at Bristol: On 24 July 2023, following a jury trial, the applicant was convicted of five sexual offences and sentenced to a total of 33 months’ imprisonment.
• Single judge: Refused leave to appeal on the papers.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the renewed application for leave to appeal and the application for an extension of time: [2025] EWCA Crim 798.