DCB, R. V [2025] EWCA Crim 1253 (11 September 2025)

DCB, R. V [2025] EWCA Crim 1253 (11 September 2025)

The applicant's complaints regarding his legal representation and alleged undisclosed evidence were unsupported and refuted by his former lawyers; there was no basis to conclude the trials were unfair or the convictions unsafe. The admission of bad character evidence in Trial 2 was proper and not unfairly prejudicial. The sentence imposed was justified and not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and risk posed by the applicant. There was no arguable merit in any ground of appeal or in the applications for extension of time.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1253
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant/defendant: D. C. B.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence, and for Extension of Time
Outcome
All applications refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Robbery, Appeals, Bad Character Evidence, Sentencing, Extension of Time
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Robbery Appeals Bad Character Evidence Sentencing Extension of Time

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

D. C. B.

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence, and for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions from Trial 1 and Trial 2 are unsafe due to alleged failings by defence counsel and alleged non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence
  2. 2 Whether the admission of bad character evidence in Trial 2 was improper or unfairly prejudicial
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's complaints regarding his legal representation and alleged undisclosed evidence were unsupported and refuted by his former lawyers; there was no basis to conclude the trials were unfair or the convictions unsafe. The admission of bad character evidence in Trial 2 was proper and not unfairly prejudicial. The sentence imposed was justified and not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and risk posed by the applicant. There was no arguable merit in any ground of appeal or in the applications for extension of time.

Court Disposition

All applications refused

Orders

  • Applications for extension of time for leave to appeal conviction and sentence refused
  • Applications for leave to appeal conviction and sentence refused