R v Timothy John Luckhurst-Matthews

A criminal trial is not rendered unfair by every departure from good practice. The question is whether the departure is so gross, persistent, prejudicial or irremediable that the defendant is denied the substance of a fair trial. The strength of the evidence cannot cure such unfairness. A trial judge may, in appropriate circumstances, allow a self-represented defendant to sit at counsel’s benches rather than in the dock, including to facilitate access to papers and note-taking. Failure to make that accommodation does not require a conviction to be quashed where the defendant can still present his case, the trial is simple, and the alleged disadvantage falls well short of the applicable threshold.

The appellant, aged 71, represented himself at trial in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne and was convicted on 26 March 2025 of sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He appealed by leave of the single judge. He argued that the trial was unfair because he was required for most of the trial to sit in the dock, without a table on which to arrange papers and take notes. The judge refused that request because of the usual security rule, but allowed him to make his closing speech from counsel’s benches and facilitated access to documents during breaks. The central issue was whether those limitations materially impaired his ability to present his defence so as to make the conviction unsafe.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The court applied the principles stated by the Privy Council in Randall [2002] UKPC 19; [2002] 1 WLR 2237. Not every departure from good trial practice makes a trial unfair. The fair-trial right is absolute, but a conviction must be quashed only where the departure is so gross, persistent, prejudicial or irremediable that the defendant has been denied the substance of a fair trial. The strength of the case cannot cure a trial that has crossed that threshold.
2. It was open to the trial judge, as a proper exercise of discretion, to allow the self-represented appellant to conduct the whole case from counsel’s benches. The usual rule that defendants sit in the dock may be departed from in appropriate circumstances, although the design and security arrangements of criminal courts make such departures infrequent.
3. The failure to provide a table and unrestricted access to papers did not render this trial unfair. The case was short and simple. The appellant was able to remember and present his case, obtain documents with the judge’s assistance, give clear evidence, call his wife, and make a coherent closing speech. The most demanding cross-examination, that of the complainant, was conducted satisfactorily by appointed counsel. The judge’s summing-up also reminded the jury of the relevant evidence.
4. The resulting disadvantage affected the appellant’s ability to take notes to some extent, but fell far short of the unfairness required before an appellate court may quash a conviction. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 97, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: The appellant was convicted of sexual assault on 26 March 2025 and received a suspended sentence of imprisonment.