DM v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1187
R v AUV
16 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 11
Court of Appeal
A mom was convicted of abusing her daughter. Her lawyers tried to appeal, saying her original lawyer was bad and had missed evidence. The court said the new lawyers didn't find any real mistakes and that the new evidence wasn't important enough to change the guilty verdict. The mom's conviction stayed the same.
Key Facts
- •The appellant (mother) was convicted of 13 offences related to cruelty and sexual abuse of her daughter (S), now aged 24.
- •Offences included cruelty to a person under 16, sexual assault of a child under 13, causing/inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, sexual activity with a child, and making indecent photographs of a child.
- •The total sentence was 9 years' imprisonment, an indefinite Restraining Order, and forfeiture of electronic devices.
- •The appellant's defence was that S suffered from Pathological Demand Avoidance Syndrome (PDAS), a claim refuted by expert testimony.
- •A significant delay (377 days) occurred in making the application for an extension of time to appeal.
- •The appellant's new legal team criticized the performance of the trial counsel and solicitors, alleging incompetence.
Legal Principles
To establish lack of safety due to incompetence, the appellant must show that the incompetence led to identifiable errors or irregularities rendering the process unfair or unsafe.
R v Day [2003] EWCA Crim 1060 at paragraph 15
In child cruelty cases, ‘assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons or exposes’ does not create five separate offences; evidence of isolation and physical/verbal assaults may constitute ill treatment.
R v Hayles (1969) 53 Cr.App.R. 36, 40, [1969] 1 Q.B. 364
A Brown direction (regarding jury unanimity on specific evidence) is only necessary in rare situations, not when the individual particulars do not involve different defences.
R v Chilvers (Peter) 2021 EWCA Crim 1311
More than one incident of an offence can be included in a count if they amount to a course of conduct.
Criminal Procedure Rules r.14.2(2)
Expert evidence regarding previous diagnosis of a condition and its potential causes is admissible; the expert's opinion on the veracity of allegations is not.
Sections 45-48
A document is admissible as a memory-refreshing document if used by a witness to refresh their memory while giving evidence, or as evidence of complaint if the witness is cross-examined about it in the context of recent fabrication.
s 120 Criminal Justice Act 2023
Outcomes
Application for extension of time, admission of fresh evidence, and permission to appeal were dismissed.
The delay was due to the new legal team's focus on criticizing trial counsel's decisions rather than identifying arguable grounds of appeal; the fresh evidence was deemed irrelevant or without merit; and the grounds of appeal were unarguable.