DM v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1187
R v NRZ
18 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 93
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually abusing his daughter. He appealed his conviction very late and claimed his lawyers were bad. The court said the delay was too long, the reasons for the appeal were weak, and the new evidence he wanted to present wasn't strong enough. His appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •The applicant was convicted of 15 counts of sexual abuse against his daughter (C) in October 2020.
- •The appeal against conviction was 771 days late.
- •The grounds of appeal included non-disclosure of a statement from C's sister (L), and incompetent legal representation.
- •The applicant claimed his lawyers failed to call L and two other witnesses to challenge C's credibility.
- •The applicant sought further disclosure of an Adult Concern form, a social services report, and messages between C and MM.
- •Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply, protecting C's identity.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, s.3
Extension of time for appealing a conviction requires a good reason for the delay and merit in the grounds of appeal.
Implied from the judge's decision
Failure to disclose material evidence can be a ground for appeal.
Implied from the grounds of appeal
Claims of incompetent legal representation must be justified.
Implied from the judge's decision
Fresh evidence must have a significant evidential basis and would likely have affected the trial outcome.
Implied from the judge's decision
Outcomes
The application for an extension of time to appeal and the appeal itself were dismissed.
The delay was unacceptable and unexplained, the grounds of appeal lacked merit, and the proposed fresh evidence was insufficient to affect the trial outcome.