DM v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1187
R v AMF & Anor
23 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 899
Court of Appeal
The prosecution appealed a judge's decision to drop some sexual abuse charges. They were too late to appeal because they didn't file the paperwork on time, so the judge's decision stands. Some of the defendants are acquitted, and the other will have a new trial.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a Crown Court judge's ruling of insufficient evidence to proceed with counts 20-23 (indecent assault and indecency with a child) against defendants AMF and AZJ.
- •The charges related to historical sexual offences alleged against AMF and AZJ involving a third victim (VV).
- •The prosecution appealed the ruling under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
- •The prosecution's appeal notice was served significantly late, violating Criminal Procedure Rule 38.3(2)(b).
- •The prosecution argued that the judge improperly assessed witness credibility and failed to account for the complexities of historical sexual abuse cases.
- •The prosecution conceded that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on counts 21 and 23 due to the victim's age.
- •The Court of Appeal considered whether to extend the time limit for the appeal notice.
Legal Principles
The prosecution's right to appeal a trial judge's ruling is an exception to the finality of trial proceedings and requires expedition.
R v H [2008] EWCA Crim 483
The court has discretion to extend time limits for serving an appeal notice under CPR 36.3(a), but a reasonable explanation for the delay is required.
CPR 36.3(a)
The overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules includes convicting the guilty, but this must be balanced against procedural fairness and the need for timely appeals.
Criminal Procedure Rules
In cases of historical sexual abuse, the jury's role in assessing witness credibility and evidence must be respected; the judge should not usurp this function.
Case Law (implied)
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused to extend the time for serving the appeal notice.
The prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in serving the appeal notice. The importance of timely appeals in overturning acquittals and the procedural irregularities outweighed the potential for failing to convict the guilty, especially given concessions regarding insufficient evidence on counts 21 and 23.
The Court of Appeal refused the prosecution's application for leave to appeal.
The late service of the appeal notice was deemed unacceptable, and the judge's ruling of no case to answer was upheld.
The respondents were acquitted of counts 20 to 23.
This is a consequence of the refusal to extend time and uphold the original ruling.
A retrial was ordered for counts 1 to 19 (against AMF only).
The jury had been discharged on these counts prior to the appeal ruling.