R v Emmanuel Onwubiko

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that dissatisfaction with jury verdicts is insufficient. A conviction following a fair trial may be challenged only where an error of law or material irregularity arguably renders it unsafe. The alleged error must be significant and capable of affecting the verdict when the evidence is considered as a whole. Credibility, inconsistencies and factual conflicts ordinarily remain matters for the jury where they were ventilated at trial. A mistaken-identity case based on evidence available at trial carries little weight where it was not advanced or put to witnesses, particularly where identification is supported by direct evidence and the applicant’s own admissions. The renewed application was refused because no arguable error or unsafe conviction was shown.

The applicant was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of five sexual assaults and sentenced to concurrent terms of two years’ imprisonment. Following refusal of his initial application by a Single Judge, he renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction. He alleged, among other matters, memory loss during interview, false evidence, mishandling of forensic evidence, undisclosed inconsistencies, contradictions in the manager’s evidence, missing CCTV and mistaken identity. The central issue was whether any ground disclosed an arguable error of law or material irregularity capable of rendering the convictions unsafe.

The Court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.

1. Applicable standard. The Court agreed with the Single Judge’s statement that an appeal does not lie merely because a defendant disagrees with jury verdicts. After a fair trial, a conviction can be challenged where there has been an error of law, such as a misdirection or an erroneous ruling admitting inadmissible evidence, or another material irregularity affecting the fairness of the trial. The alleged error or irregularity must be significant, capable of affecting the verdict, and sufficient, in the context of the evidence as a whole, to make the conviction arguably unsafe.
2. Evidence and the jury’s function. The matters raised concerning credibility, inconsistencies and factual differences had been available to the jury through evidence, cross-examination, agreed facts or the summing-up. The judge had correctly directed the jury on the relevant evidence, including its limitations. Assessment of those matters was for the jury and disclosed no error of law.
3. Individual grounds. The applicant had been medically examined before interview, was represented by a solicitor and answered questions fully. The alleged false police statement had been before the jury and was explored in cross-examination. The forensic evidence was agreed, and the judge accurately explained it. The messages, including the reference to not wanting to be a snitch, were before the jury. The manager gave evidence and was cross-examined. It was an agreed fact that there was no CCTV on the relevant ward. The pre-sentence report was irrelevant to conviction.
4. Mistaken identity. The evidence relied upon for this new case was available at trial, but the defence was not advanced and relevant witnesses were not cross-examined on it. There was no evidential basis for identifying another care worker as the assailant. Conversely, the complainant’s account, the applicant’s own admissions concerning the kitchen and bedroom, and her direct identification supported the conclusion that he was the offender. The asserted discrepancies were minor and did not undermine identification.
5. There was no arguable ground, no material irregularity and no basis for concluding that the convictions were unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused on 5 June 2026: [2026] EWCA Crim 883.
• Single Judge: The initial application for leave was refused on the ground that the proposed grounds lacked merit and were unarguable.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: The applicant was convicted on five counts of sexual assault on 12 May 2025 and sentenced on 13 May 2025 to concurrent terms of two years’ imprisonment.