Parkinson, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1797 (03 December 2025)

Parkinson, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1797 (03 December 2025)

The proposed fresh evidence from the three witnesses is inadmissible under section 41 of the Youth and Criminal Justice Evidence Act 1991 and section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as it does not meet the statutory exceptions or probative value requirements. There is no reasonable explanation for its absence at trial, and it would not have affected the safety of the conviction. Accordingly, the application to adduce fresh evidence and for leave to appeal is refused.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1797
Parties
Prosecution: R; Applicant: David Barry Parkinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and to Adduce Fresh Evidence
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Fresh Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Sexual Offences, Bad Character Evidence, Section 41 Applications
Criminal Law Rape Fresh Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Sexual Offences Bad Character Evidence Section 41 Applications

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

David Barry Parkinson

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and to Adduce Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence from three witnesses is admissible under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 41 of the Youth and Criminal Justice Evidence Act 1991, and section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the evidence impacts the safety of the conviction for rape

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed fresh evidence from the three witnesses is inadmissible under section 41 of the Youth and Criminal Justice Evidence Act 1991 and section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as it does not meet the statutory exceptions or probative value requirements. There is no reasonable explanation for its absence at trial, and it would not have affected the safety of the conviction. Accordingly, the application to adduce fresh evidence and for leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to adduce fresh evidence refused
  • Application for extension of time refused