Gilder, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1848 (10 December 2025)

Gilder, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1848 (10 December 2025)

There was no evidence of jury irregularity; the Criminal Cases Review Commission's investigation was thorough and found no connection between the juror and complainant. The proposed fresh evidence was either inadmissible, could have been adduced at trial, or lacked sufficient probative value. No good reason was provided for the delay in raising new grounds. The judge's conduct and summing-up were fair. The applicant failed to meet the high threshold for introducing fresh grounds or for an extension of time to appeal.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1848
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Shaun Gilder
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Rape, Assault by Penetration, Jury Irregularity, Fresh Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Judicial Conduct, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Rape Assault by Penetration Jury Irregularity Fresh Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Judicial Conduct Appeal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Shaun Gilder

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was jury irregularity affecting the safety of the conviction
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in admitting evidence from the applicant's police interview

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of jury irregularity; the Criminal Cases Review Commission's investigation was thorough and found no connection between the juror and complainant. The proposed fresh evidence was either inadmissible, could have been adduced at trial, or lacked sufficient probative value. No good reason was provided for the delay in raising new grounds. The judge's conduct and summing-up were fair. The applicant failed to meet the high threshold for introducing fresh grounds or for an extension of time to appeal.

Court Disposition

applications refused

Orders

  • Refusal of permission to rely on fresh grounds of appeal
  • Refusal of extension of time to appeal