[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Curtis, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 276 (27 February 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/276.html Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 276

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT READING
HER HONOUR JUDGE NORTON T20230027

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		27 February 2025

MR JUSTICE MARTIN SPENCER:

1. The Applicant, Leon Curtis, who was born on 22 February 1984 and is now aged 41, renews his application for leave to appeal against his conviction of offences of causing criminal damage, assault and doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, leave having been refused on the papers by the single judge. The Applicant also applies for leave to introduce fresh evidence. The Applicant was convicted on 28 September 2023 following trial in the Crown Court at Reading before Her Honour Judge Norton and a jury. On 28 February 2024, he was sentenced to a term of 20 months' imprisonment.
2. The facts of this matter, as derived from the summing-up of the learned judge, have been fully set out in the summary prepared by the Criminal Appeal Office which has been seen by the Applicant and therefore need not be repeated in this judgment.
3. The essential matters relied on by the Applicant in seeking leave to appeal are set out in the single judge's reasons for refusing leave. He stated as follows:

" I have considered the papers in your case and your grounds of appeal.

You have submitted a quite enormous volume of material in support of your application. This includes a 17-page handwritten form NG, an 18-page letter, a 4-page grounds of appeal document, a 61-page 'Updated Enhanced Appeal Analysis', a 16-page response to the RN, a number of 'response' documents and numerous emails and attachments. I have considered all this material. I have also read the Respondents' Notice and the responses to your grounds from your former barrister and solicitors. Despite careful consideration of all this material, I have been unable to identify a single ground of appeal which is properly arguable.

The RN and your counsel's observations deal convincingly with all your complaints. In short summary, my views on your principal grounds are as follows:

1. The judge's decision in relation to the complainant's herpes.

The judge gave an ex parte ruling on this topic. Her conclusions were correct for the reasons she gave. The probative value of this evidence to the issues in the case was minimal. There was no justification for admitting such material which would obviously have been embarrassing and distressing for the complainant. The judge's comments on the prevalence of herpes, whether right or wrong, did not impact on her ruling on admissibility. Furthermore, it is to be noted that had this material been admitted it was likely to have been supportive of the Crown's case against you. It certainly does not render your conviction unsafe.

2. Disclosure

No significant complaint about disclosure was made during the trial and there is nothing to suggest that in fact disclosure was deficient.

3. The Quality of your representation

The response of your counsel to the numerous criticisms you make of him are entirely convincing. He dealt appropriately with all issues that arose in the trial. He was limited by his professional obligations as to the extent to which he could comply with some of your instructions.

4. Additional evidence

I can discern no properly arguable ground of appeal under this heading.

5. The jury

There is no evidence that any member of the jury had any connection to the facts of this case which made it inappropriate for them to serve on the jury. No such complaint was made during the trial.

6. Instruction of a King's Counsel

The Crown was entitled to instruct counsel of their choice. The decision to instruct leading counsel was perfectly proper, especially given the difficulties the Crown had in securing the services of an appropriately senior junior counsel.

7. The judge's summing-up

The judge's summing up was entirely adequate. Her decision not to give her views on the evidence was perfectly proper.

8. Abuse of process

No complaint was made during the trial to the effect that these proceedings were an abuse of the process and there were no grounds for doing so.

9. Additional Complaints

You make numerous other complaints, but there is no merit in any of them.

For example, as to the strength of the evidence, notably that of Dr Brook. But these were matters for the jury.

The medical evidence adduced in support of the Crown's case was sufficient for the purpose.

There are no grounds for concern about the complainant's mental state; no application was made during the trial to exclude her evidence on the grounds of her mental health.

Standing back from the detail, I have been able to find [anything] which supports an argument that your conviction was unsafe and accordingly leave to appeal is refused."

4. We too have considered in full the large volume of material submitted by the Applicant and, in agreement with the single judge, we can find no substance in any of the Applicant's arguments and, on the material before him, we have no doubt that the single judge was right to refuse leave.
5. Since the single judge's decision, the Applicant has submitted a further document entitled "Enhanced Appeal Analysis - Comprehensive Grounds for Quashing Conviction and Staying Proceedings" which is no less than 110 pages long. Introducing the document, the Applicant states:

"The conviction of Leon Curtis is contended to be unsafe due to a multitude of factors that fundamentally undermine the integrity of the investigation, prosecution, and trial process. The appeal presents an exhaustive analysis of these factors, supported by case law, new evidence, and revelations of material perjury by the key witness. The cumulative effect of these issues strongly indicates a potential miscarriage of justice, necessitating a thorough review of the conviction."

The document then seeks to set out the Applicant's full case for leave to appeal and the quashing of his convictions under the following principal headings:

(i) Unreliable and Inconsistent Witness Testimony;

(ii) Police Misconduct and Procedural Irregularities;

(iii) Failure to Pursue Crucial Lines of Inquiry;

(iv) Cumulative Effect of Witness Perjury and Investigative Failures;

(v) NFA/Pending Discrepancies, Manual Charge Entry, and Pre-Trial Judicial Misconduct: Evidence of Systemic Manipulation;

(vi) Egregious Prosecutorial Misconduct and Fundamental Failures of Justice;

(vii) Officer Perjury and Suppression of Key Witness Complaint;

(viii) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel;

(ix) Unauthorised Surveillance and Abuse of Investigative Powers;

(x) Unlawful Retention of Property and Obstruction of Appeal Process;

(xi) Continued Obstruction and Lack of Communication;

(xii) Judicial Errors;

(xiii) Pre-Trial Judicial Misconduct and Prosecutorial Impropriety;

(xiv) New Evidence;

(xv) Mischaracterisation of Support as Perversion of Justice;

(xvi) Detailed Analysis of NFA and Charging Inconsistencies.

Drawing the above matters together, the Applicant summarises his case in a final section headed "Conclusion" in which he submits that the cumulative effect of the myriad issues addressed in the document casts "overwhelming doubt on the safety of Mr Curtis' conviction. The totality of the evidence, including new information that has come to light, strongly suggests that a significant miscarriage of justice has occurred, necessitating a thorough review and reconsideration of the entire case against Mr Curtis." The key points which the Applicant relies upon in support include his assertions that:

He and the complainant remained in a relationship after the date of the allegations, undermining the prosecution's case that she experienced fear, coercion or abuse;

The complainant perjured herself in her testimony;

The police failed to pursue crucial lines of inquiry;

There was prosecutorial misconduct, for example in failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, in over-charging the Applicant and in mischaracterising the relationship of the Applicant and the complainant;

The Applicant's counsel was ineffective in challenging the evidence against the Applicant;

The learned trial judge erred in her rulings and showed bias in her interventions;

New evidence has emerged in the form of social media posts tending to show the relationship between the Applicant and the complainant in a different light;

The Applicant's attempts to support the complainant were mischaracterised and misinterpreted as attempts to pervert the course of justice;

The complainant's behaviour since the Applicant's conviction contradicts her evidence at trial and the prosecution depiction of their relationship.

The Applicant also relies on further matters relating, for example, to the complainant's mental health issues and other matters which need not be set out in full.

6. Despite careful consideration of all of the above matters, and the detailed arguments and points adduced by the Applicant in support of them, including the authorities relied upon, we remain wholly unpersuaded that there is any substance in this application such that we should grant leave to appeal. The fundamental issue for the jury at the trial was whether they accepted the complainant's evidence so that they were sure of the Applicant's guilt, and by their verdicts, the jury so indicated. None of the matters relied upon by the Applicant persuades us that there is an arguable case that the charges were improperly pursued or investigated, that the Applicant's representation was anything but competent or that the judge erred in her rulings or displayed bias in her interventions. In our view, there is no ground for allowing the application for fresh evidence. Leave to appeal and the application to call fresh evidence are accordingly refused.