DM v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1187
R v “PG”
1 November 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1420
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexual offences. He appealed, claiming his lawyer was bad and new evidence existed. The court rejected his appeal because his appeal was too late, the new evidence wasn't important, and the jury had enough evidence to convict him fairly.
Key Facts
- •Applicant convicted of multiple sexual offences against three complainants (C1, C2, C3) in 2018.
- •Offences alleged to be historical, spanning 1988-1990.
- •Applicant's appeal against conviction was refused by a single judge and renewed in this appeal.
- •Applicant's solicitor's conduct was criticised by the Legal Ombudsman.
- •Appeal lodged over 4.5 years late.
- •Applicant sought to adduce new evidence.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to prevent identification of victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
The jury's role is to determine the credibility of witnesses and whether the prosecution has proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Common Law
Criteria for admitting new evidence on appeal are set out in section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Section 23
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
No reasonably arguable grounds of appeal; solicitor's shortcomings did not affect the outcome; new evidence inadmissible and untimely; appeal significantly out of time.
Application to adduce new evidence refused.
Evidence could have been presented at trial; unclear how it would have assisted; criteria of section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 not met; incorrect procedure followed.
Application to extend time for appeal refused.
Appeal significantly out of time; no arguable grounds of appeal; extending time would cause further distress to complainants.