R v Steven Nolan

In a criminal appeal based on fresh evidence, the controlling question remains whether the conviction is unsafe. The court should apply the statutory considerations governing evidence not adduced at trial, including its potential to afford a ground of appeal and whether there is a reasonable explanation for non-production. Evidence concerning only historical or peripheral matters, with no direct bearing on the counts, will not justify admission. Immediate custody may be imposed where the seriousness of the offending requires a term that cannot be suspended, even if risk can be managed in the community and custody affects family or business.

The applicant was convicted at Guildford Crown Court of stalking involving fear of violence and dangerous driving, and acquitted of making a threat to kill. He received concurrent sentences totalling 26 months. Following refusal of leave by a Single Judge, he renewed applications concerning conviction, sentence, extensions of time and fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. He alleged trial unfairness, including inadequate assistance while acting in person, and argued that a community sentence should have been imposed. The central issues were whether the convictions were unsafe, whether the fresh evidence should be received, and whether the sentence involved an arguable error of principle.

The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, for extensions of time, and to adduce fresh evidence were refused.

1. Fresh evidence. Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 permits the Court of Appeal to receive evidence not adduced below where that is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. Section 23(2) identifies matters including credibility, whether the evidence may afford a ground for allowing the appeal, admissibility at trial and any reasonable explanation for failing to adduce it. The ultimate question remains whether the conviction is unsafe, as explained in R v Pendleton [2001] UKHL 66 and R v Pabon [2018] EWCA Crim 420. The proposed statements concerned historical or peripheral matters, did not directly address the incidents before the jury, could not afford a ground for allowing the appeal, and were unsupported by a reasonable explanation for their late production. Admission was therefore refused.
2. Conviction. The transcript showed that the applicant had ample time to prepare, received guidance for unrepresented defendants, and was assisted patiently by the trial judge. The judge was entitled to exclude evidence that was irrelevant to matters in dispute. The applicant identified no particular part of his defence that he had been prevented from advancing. The trial was fair and there was no arguable basis for concluding that the convictions were unsafe.
3. Sentence. The sentencing judge adopted a conventional totality approach, treating stalking as the lead offence and imposing a concurrent sentence for dangerous driving. The seriousness of the offending, previous relevant convictions, the domestic context and the presence of the applicant’s daughter justified 26 months’ imprisonment. The pre-sentence report did not recommend a community sentence and identified custody as a viable option. The judge had considered the effects on the applicant’s family and business. There was no arguable error in principle in imposing immediate custody.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, to admit fresh evidence and for extensions of time: [2026] EWCA Crim 465.
2. Single Judge (Jacobs J) refused leave to appeal.
3. Crown Court at Guildford convicted the applicant of stalking and dangerous driving, acquitted him of making a threat to kill, and imposed concurrent sentences totalling 26 months’ imprisonment.