R v Davis

The case of R v Davis involves an appeal by the applicant, Alan James Davis, against his conviction for unlawful anal intercourse and indecent acts on a boy under the age of 16. The applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment, which was to run concurrently. The applicant filed his appeal against conviction on 7 August 2007, approximately one year and two months out of time. He was released on home detention on 16 July 2007 and has been on parole since 8 October 2007.

The applicant's appeal is based on several grounds, including the trial judge's response to a jury question about "reasonable doubt", the structure of the summing up, the trial judge's refusal to grant a stay or discharge due to undue delay, the applicant's actual prejudice as a result of the delay, the trial judge's failure to address the difficulties and prejudice faced by the applicant in presenting his defence due to the long delay, and the contention that these grounds, taken together, caused a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal found that none of the proposed grounds of appeal were valid. The applicant's additional ground, that the appeal should not have been heard by the Criminal Appeal Division of the Court, was dismissed as there was a statutory basis for the hearing of a greater percentage of criminal appeals in a Divisional Court. The Court found that the trial judge's response to the jury's question was not a misdirection, and the summing up was fair and balanced. The Court also found that the applicant had not suffered any actual prejudice due to the delay, and that the trial judge was entitled to exercise his discretion not to give a Longman-type direction on the issue of delay.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the proposed grounds of appeal did not establish a substantial risk that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, and therefore refused leave to appeal. The Court noted that the appeal had limited utility, as the applicant was already on parole, and that the delay in seeking leave to appeal was long and unexplained.