Gellen, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 109 (26 January 2024)

Gellen, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 109 (26 January 2024)

There were no arguable grounds for appeal as the evidence sought to be adduced was not fresh, could have been adduced at trial, or would not have affected the outcome; the applicant's legal team acted competently; there was no failure to disclose; the judge's directions were proper; and no unfairness arose from adverse publicity or the conduct of the trial. The applications for extension of time, to adduce fresh evidence, and to amend grounds of appeal were refused.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 109
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant/defendant: Paul Gellen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Extension of Time to Appeal, Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence, Application to Amend Grounds of Appeal
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Appeals, Fresh Evidence, Extension of Time, Adverse Publicity, Jury Directions, Legal Representation
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Appeals Fresh Evidence Extension of Time Adverse Publicity Jury Directions Legal Representation

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Paul Gellen

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Extension of Time to Appeal, Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence, Application to Amend Grounds of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are arguable grounds to extend time for appeal against conviction
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant received poor legal representation at trial

Ratio Decidendi

There were no arguable grounds for appeal as the evidence sought to be adduced was not fresh, could have been adduced at trial, or would not have affected the outcome; the applicant's legal team acted competently; there was no failure to disclose; the judge's directions were proper; and no unfairness arose from adverse publicity or the conduct of the trial. The applications for extension of time, to adduce fresh evidence, and to amend grounds of appeal were refused.

Court Disposition

applications refused

Orders

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