AFH, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1614 (17 December 2024)

AFH, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1614 (17 December 2024)

The Instagram messages, even if admitted, did not undermine the credibility of the complainants or the safety of the conviction, as the generally good relationship between the applicant and C1 was common ground at trial. There was no reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence earlier. The sentence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 1614
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant: AFH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Applications for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence, and to Adduce Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Fresh Evidence, Section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Fresh Evidence Section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Sentencing Guidelines

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

AFH

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Applications for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence, and to Adduce Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence (Instagram messages) should be admitted under section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether conviction is unsafe in light of fresh evidence
  3. 3 Whether sentence is manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Instagram messages, even if admitted, did not undermine the credibility of the complainants or the safety of the conviction, as the generally good relationship between the applicant and C1 was common ground at trial. There was no reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence earlier. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the number and seriousness of the offences and the vulnerability of the victims.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Application to adduce fresh evidence refused
  • Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused