DM v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1187
R v Paul Gellen
26 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 109
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape and other sexual offences. He tried to appeal his conviction, claiming his lawyers were bad and he had new evidence. The court said his claims weren't strong enough to overturn the conviction because the new evidence wasn't really new and his lawyer problems didn't matter much.
Key Facts
- •Paul Gellen (applicant) was convicted on 5 May 2022 of assault by penetration, sexual assault, and two counts of rape.
- •He received a 21-year extended determinate sentence.
- •He filed an out-of-time application for leave to appeal, seeking to adduce fresh evidence from his partner and other witnesses.
- •The single judge refused the application, finding no arguable grounds of appeal and that the evidence was not fresh.
- •The applicant renewed his applications before the full court, adding further grounds and fresh evidence.
- •The applicant represented himself throughout the appeals process due to unsuccessful attempts to secure legal representation.
- •The case involved a single female complainant (C) whose identity is protected by anonymity.
- •The applicant's defence was that the sexual activity was consensual.
Legal Principles
Test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal under section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1988.
Criminal Appeal Act 1988, section 23(2)
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 protecting the identity of complainants in sexual offence cases.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Outcomes
All applications (for extension of time, leave to adduce fresh evidence, and to add further grounds of appeal) were refused.
The court found no arguable grounds of appeal. The fresh evidence was either not fresh, could have been adduced at trial, or was not sufficiently probative to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction. The delay in filing the applications was also considered.