DM v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1187
R v MT
24 May 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 558
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually abusing a girl. He appealed, saying his lawyer wasn't good enough and the judge's instructions were confusing. The appeals court said even if the lawyer was bad, it didn't change the fact that the man was guilty, so they kept the conviction.
Key Facts
- •Applicant (MT) convicted of 13 sexual offences against C1 (indecency with a child, indecent assault, sexual assault, causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, attempted rape, causing a child to watch a sexual act, and rape).
- •Offences spanned approximately 10 years.
- •C1 initially made allegations in 2007, then retracted them, before reporting them to police in 2018.
- •Applicant appealed against conviction in July 2022, seeking an extension of time due to a delay of 462 days.
- •Appeal raised three grounds: inadequacy of consent direction, inadequacy of delay direction, and inadequate case preparation.
Legal Principles
Extension of time for appealing conviction will only be granted if there's a good reason and the defendant would otherwise suffer significant injustice.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s.18(3); R v Hughes [2009] EWCA Crim 841 at [20]
The court will only grant an extension if it is in the interests of justice, considering finality of Crown Court judgments, interests of other litigants, efficient use of resources, and individual liberty.
R v Thornsby [2015] EWCA Crim 1 at [13]
The court must examine the merits of the underlying grounds before deciding on an extension of time.
R v Thornsby [2015] EWCA Crim 1 at [13]
Incompetence of lawyers only renders a conviction unsafe if it leads to identifiable, serious errors or irregularities resulting in an unfair trial.
R v Sutherland & Khan [2022] EWCA Crim 72 at [33]
Outcomes
Application for extension of time refused.
While a short extension to late November 2021 was justified due to initial delays in obtaining legal representation, the subsequent delay was unwarranted. The grounds of appeal lacked merit, and no significant injustice or impact on the safety of the convictions was found.
Ground 1 (inadequate consent direction) rejected.
The consent direction, while perhaps clumsily worded, was not misleading in the context of the summing up as a whole. Consent was not a central issue, as the applicant denied the events occurred.
Ground 2 (inadequate delay direction) rejected.
The delay direction, while not as comprehensive as it could have been, did not cause significant injustice. The jury's careful consideration of individual counts, the contemporaneous allegations in 2007, and other evidence mitigated any potential prejudice.
Ground 3 (inadequate case preparation) rejected.
Alleged failures in preparation, while potentially demonstrating a lack of attention to detail, did not cause significant injustice or render the convictions unsafe. No identifiable errors or irregularities affected the fairness of the trial.