R v Charles Joseph Victor Hobbs

In a renewed criminal appeal, a proposed ground must be reasonably arguable before leave can be granted. Re-arguing factual disputes, unsupported criticisms of trial representation, or relying on publicity without identifying a misdirection does not meet that threshold where the trial record shows that the issues were properly addressed. Fresh evidence under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s 23 may be refused where it could have been obtained for trial without explanation, is inadmissible, lacks probative value, or is irrelevant to the jury’s issues. Evidence concerning later events or the applicant’s courtroom conduct will not assist unless it bears on the safety of the conviction. The renewed applications were dismissed.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Truro of controlling and coercive behaviour, three rapes and assault by penetration. He received concurrent sentences totalling 10 years’ imprisonment. A single judge, O’Farrell J, refused his application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, bail and a representation order.

The applicant renewed those applications and sought leave under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to introduce witness and video evidence. The issues were whether the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable and whether the additional evidence was admissible, probative and relevant.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction, bail and a representation order. It also refused leave to introduce the further evidence.

1. The complaints that the complainant had not been cross-examined and that the factual disputes had not been properly addressed had no merit. The trial record contained numerous references to cross-examination, and the conflicting accounts of the relationship had been placed before the jury as questions of fact.
2. The complaints about legal representation did not establish an unsafe conviction. Counsel and the solicitors had responded to the allegations, the applicant had been consulted on numerous occasions, and the court record showed that his disruptive behaviour had sometimes required his removal from court. The applicant’s criticisms did not disclose an arguable ground of appeal.
3. The media-publicity ground also failed. The trial judge had properly directed the jury on the law and on their duty to decide the case on the evidence. No misdirection was identified.
4. The proposed fresh evidence was not admissible or sufficiently probative. There was no adequate explanation why the evidence of Michael Stearns and Paul Rooney could not have been obtained for trial. The material was unsigned or undated in relevant respects, and did not provide admissible evidence. Evidence concerning the applicant’s conduct in court was irrelevant to what evidence had gone before the jury. The video was inadmissible, had no probative value and concerned a different time. Apparent amicability between the applicant and complainant at another time would not assist the jury.
5. The evidence of Dawn Murphy was unsupported by a statement and disclosed no meritorious ground. The proposed appeal was not reasonably arguable, so all the renewed applications were dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction, bail and a representation order were dismissed. The application to adduce fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 was refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 897.
• Single judge O’Farrell J refused the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal.
• Crown Court at Truro The applicant was convicted on 29 July 2022 and sentenced on 16 September 2022 to concurrent terms totalling 10 years’ imprisonment.