XY, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1473 (20 October 2022)

XY, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1473 (20 October 2022)

The evidence from GK was not fresh, as it was available at trial and there was no reasonable explanation for not adducing it then. The theory advanced in the new evidence was already put before the jury and rejected. The proposed evidence was not credible and did not render the conviction unsafe. The application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Crim 1473
Parties
Prosecution: R.; Applicant: XY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction, With Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, DNA Evidence, Section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Sexual Offences Act 2003, Anonymity of Victims
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Fresh Evidence on Appeal DNA Evidence Section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 Sexual Offences Act 2003 Anonymity of Victims

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

Parties

R.

Prosecution

XY

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction, With Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence from the complainant (GK) should be admitted on appeal under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether the conviction is unsafe in light of the proposed fresh evidence
  3. 3 Whether there was a reasonable explanation for not adducing the evidence at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence from GK was not fresh, as it was available at trial and there was no reasonable explanation for not adducing it then. The theory advanced in the new evidence was already put before the jury and rejected. The proposed evidence was not credible and did not render the conviction unsafe. The application failed to satisfy the criteria in section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

Court Disposition

applications refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Application for leave to appeal refused