R v Dedan Smith

An extension of time to renew an application for leave to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds are not reasonably arguable and the conviction is not arguably unsafe. A trial judge may determine the need for an intermediary after considering relevant expert evidence; a non-expert intermediary report cannot itself establish that need. A decision to admit a police interview under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should not be disturbed where the judge has assessed the evidence bearing on the suspect’s ability to answer questions and reached a fair and balanced conclusion. Lies and adverse-inference directions may properly be given where justified by the evidence. Mental-health evidence relied upon only to suggest violent propensity and guilt is bad-character evidence.

The applicant was convicted of murder at Woolwich Crown Court on 15 February 2024 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 16 years, less time spent on remand. He sought a six-day extension of time to renew an application for a further extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction.

The proposed grounds concerned the refusal of an intermediary, admission of the first police interview under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, adverse-inference and lies directions, and alleged failures to investigate a witness’s mental health. The central issue was whether any ground was reasonably arguable and whether the conviction was arguably unsafe.

Application refused. The court refused to extend time to renew the application and stated that it would refuse leave to appeal. The proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable and the conviction was not arguably unsafe.

1. The trial judge had spent two days hearing evidence on the need for an intermediary and related issues. The relevant psychological evidence did not demonstrate that an intermediary was necessary. The Communicourt intermediary was not qualified to give expert evidence on cognitive or learning difficulties and had expressly stated that her report was not expert evidence. There was also no foundation for the complaint that questioning had been unfair: the applicant was represented by leading and junior counsel, who could have raised any difficulty with the judge.
2. The challenge to the first police interview disclosed no arguable error. The judge had considered evidence from psychologists, the custody sergeant and the interviewing officer. The judge found no autism or mental disorder, no relevant effect from the applicant’s physical complaints, and a comprehensive custody risk assessment. In a later interview conducted with a solicitor present, the applicant maintained essentially the same account and no concern was raised about his cognitive ability or need for an appropriate adult. The decision under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was fair and balanced.
3. It was fair on the evidence to give a lies direction. The matters not mentioned in interview were mixed with lies in the applicant’s account. Any request to add an explanation to the adverse-inference direction should have been made at trial, and the omission could not arguably render the conviction unsafe.
4. If the defence case was that Mr Lewis was, or might have been, the murderer, that case should have been set out in a Defence Statement. No proper link had been established between his mental-health condition and the killing. The evidence was sought only to suggest a propensity for violence and was therefore bad-character evidence which the judge was entitled to refuse.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 26 June 2026, the court refused an extension of time to renew the application and stated that it would refuse leave to appeal: [2026] EWCA Crim 928 .
2. Single Judge — The Single Judge had refused leave to appeal, and the court agreed with the assessment that the grounds disclosed no reasonably arguable error.
3. Crown Court at Woolwich — The applicant was convicted of murder on 15 February 2024 and sentenced on 4 April 2024 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 16 years, less 398 days spent on remand.