R v Adam Courtney-Kasher
[2024] EWCA Crim 256
R v Ardit Cela
29 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1396
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape. He appealed, saying the jury's decision was inconsistent and his lawyer made a mistake by not calling a key witness. The court disagreed, saying the jury could have reasonably reached the verdict, and the decision not to call the witness was a strategic choice of the defense. His appeal against the guilty verdict was rejected. His appeal against the sentence wasn't considered because he didn't properly file it.
Key Facts
- •Ardit Cela was convicted of rape on August 6, 2021, and sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.
- •An application for leave to appeal against conviction was filed 523 days late.
- •The appeal involved two grounds: (i) inconsistency between the guilty verdict on one count of rape and the acquittal on another; and (ii) the defence team's failure to call a key witness.
- •The complainant, referred to as 'C', was allegedly raped after consensual sex between her and another man, 'M', in her bedroom.
- •The applicant's defense was that C consented to sex or that he reasonably believed she consented.
- •The applicant instructed his legal team not to call witness M.
Legal Principles
An appeal based on complaints about the conduct of an appellant’s trial representatives will only be allowed if the court is satisfied first, that no reasonably competent counsel could, in the light of the information available at the time, have taken the course that was taken, and secondly, that such incompetence led to identifiable errors or irregularities in the trial which themselves rendered the process unfair or unsafe.
R v Day [2003] EWCA Crim 1060 at [15]
An appeal on the grounds that a guilty verdict is inconsistent with an acquittal on another count will succeed only if the court is satisfied that no reasonable jury, who applied their minds properly to the facts of the case, could have arrived at the conclusion being considered by the court.
R v Fanning [2016] EWCA Crim 550; [2016] 2 Cr App R 1
If the defence disagrees with the judge's approach to inconsistent verdicts, it is normally incumbent upon them to ask for different directions.
R v Mundle [2024] EWCA Crim 1289 at [33]
Outcomes
The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
The court found that neither ground of appeal met the required legal tests. The decision not to call witness M was a strategic choice by the defence, and the inconsistent verdicts were considered rationally explainable.
The application for leave to appeal against sentence was deemed lapsed due to non-renewal.
The court noted that the application for leave to appeal sentence had not been renewed and therefore was not before them.