MT, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 558 (24 May 2023)

MT, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 558 (24 May 2023)

The appeal was dismissed because none of the alleged errors in jury directions or defence preparation amounted to significant injustice or rendered the convictions unsafe. The judge's directions, while not perfect, were adequate in context, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that any alleged incompetence or procedural error caused unfairness. The extension of time for appeal was refused beyond November 2021 as there were no good reasons for the further delay and the merits of the appeal did not justify it.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 558
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant: MT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Appeal Against Conviction, Historic Abuse, Directions to Jury, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Delay in Appeal, Extension of Time
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Appeal Against Conviction Historic Abuse Directions to Jury Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Delay in Appeal 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

MT

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's direction on consent was misleading or prejudicial
  2. 2 Whether the judge's direction on delay was inadequate and caused injustice
  3. 3 Whether alleged inadequate preparation by defence counsel rendered the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because none of the alleged errors in jury directions or defence preparation amounted to significant injustice or rendered the convictions unsafe. The judge's directions, while not perfect, were adequate in context, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that any alleged incompetence or procedural error caused unfairness. The extension of time for appeal was refused beyond November 2021 as there were no good reasons for the further delay and the merits of the appeal did not justify it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for extension of time refused.