R v “PG”
[2024] EWCA Crim 1420
DM v R
25 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1187
Court of Appeal
A man convicted of sexually abusing his daughter appealed his conviction, claiming mistakes by his lawyer and inconsistencies in the case. The court rejected his appeal because he waited too long to appeal and the issues he raised weren't strong enough to change the verdict. The jury believed the daughter's story, so the conviction stayed.
Key Facts
- •The applicant, a 62-year-old man, was convicted of 12 sexual offences against his daughter (PM) between 1996 and 2004.
- •The offences included indecent assault and rape.
- •He was sentenced to 19 years imprisonment with an extended licence period.
- •The applicant's application for leave to appeal against conviction was made 370 days out of time.
- •The applicant claimed his solicitor told him he could appeal after the 28-day deadline and that he could not afford legal fees.
- •The applicant submitted eight grounds of appeal and additional fresh evidence.
- •The single judge refused the application for leave to appeal, and this decision was reviewed by the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Restrictions on publication of information identifying victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Section 23: Admissibility of fresh evidence.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968
The court's discretion to admit fresh evidence if it is deemed necessary or expedient in the interests of justice.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Outcomes
Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
The delay in applying for leave to appeal was unjustified, and the grounds of appeal lacked merit.
Application for extension of time to appeal refused.
Applicant's reasons for the delay (reliance on solicitor's advice and inability to afford legal fees) were not considered sufficient.
Application to adduce fresh evidence refused.
No reasonable explanation was provided for the failure to adduce evidence during the Crown Court proceedings, and the evidence was unlikely to affect the safety of the convictions.