R v XFV

Applications to extend time for criminal appeals require a good reason for delay, but the court may consider the merits where full argument has been heard. An appeal against conviction requires an identified error or unfairness capable of rendering the conviction unsafe; generalised complaints about evidence, legal representation or trial conduct are insufficient. For multiple sexual offences against separate complainants, consecutive sentences may be appropriate where the overall sentence reflects total harm, culpability, aggravating factors and mitigation. Offending may be assessed collectively, particularly where it involves breach of trust, repeated conduct and a campaign of offending. Totality does not ordinarily require an arithmetical reduction from individual sentences. The appeal court will not interfere where the resulting sentence is just and proportionate.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Norwich on eight counts of sexual assault, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and four counts of sexual activity with a child, contrary to section 9(1) of that Act. He received a total sentence of 66 months' imprisonment, together with ancillary orders.

After a delay of approximately two years, he renewed applications for extensions of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. He also sought permission to introduce fresh evidence. The conviction grounds alleged unfair questioning of a defence witness, inadequate presentation of the defence, missing evidence, inadequate legal conferences and prejudicial judicial conduct. The sentence grounds alleged excessive individual and aggregate sentences, insufficient consideration of mitigation and failure to apply totality.

The central issues were whether the delay should be extended, whether the conviction was unsafe, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or disproportionate.

1. Conviction. No good reason was shown for the approximately two-year delay. The court nevertheless considered the renewed application and refused an extension of time because the grounds were without merit. There was nothing unfair in questioning a defence witness about safeguarding where she relied on safeguarding knowledge and the questioning challenged her account of the applicant's case. The applicant identified no significant evidence that had been withheld from the jury, no missing CCTV or other evidence capable of supporting the defence, and no basis for concluding that the Recorder's directions or conduct rendered the trial unfair. The alleged physical disability had been considered at trial, no medical case had been advanced, and the court was not satisfied that it prevented the acts alleged.
2. Sentence. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence because the renewed grounds were arguable. Each sexual assault was properly categorised in category A3 under the Sexual Assault Guidelines. Relevant considerations included the applicant's position of power and trust as café owner, the youth of most complainants, repeated conduct despite requests to desist, warnings by others, and the offending viewed as a whole. The Recorder, having presided over the trial, was well placed to assess the offending and was entitled to regard it as a veritable campaign warranting sentences towards the upper end of the range.
3. Consecutive sentences for separate complainants were permissible, and the three-month sentence for the offence involving the pulling of a complainant's ponytail was not excessive in context. Although express reference to mitigation would have been preferable, the Recorder had heard the relevant evidence and was taken to have considered it. Community contributions carried little weight against repeated sexual abuse in breach of trust. The applicant was not of previous good character, and the significance of good character or exemplary conduct diminishes as sexual offending becomes more serious.
4. Totality requires the overall sentence for multiple offences to reflect all the offending behaviour, overall harm and culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the offences and the offender, and to remain just and proportionate. It is neither required nor usually appropriate to calculate or state a numerical reduction from the individual sentences. The court was satisfied that the total sentence was just and proportionate. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction was refused. An extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence were granted, but the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2026] EWCA Crim 287.
• Crown Court at Norwich: The applicant was convicted on 16 February 2023 and sentenced to a total of 66 months' imprisonment, with a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and Restraining Orders.