BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Hemmings, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 798 (04 February 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/798.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 798

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 798
Case No 2024/00907/B1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT BRISTOL
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLAIR)

 Cardiff Crown Court
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3PG
4 February 2025

B e f o r e :


THE LADY CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
(Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill)
MR JUSTICE KERR
MR JUSTICE NICKLIN

____________________

R E X

- v -

ANTHONY JOHN HEMMINGS

____________________

Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

Non Counsel Application
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT (APPROVED)
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Tuesday 4 February 2025

    THE LADY CHIEF JUSTICE: I shall ask Mr Justice Nicklin to give the judgment of the court.

    MR JUSTICE NICKLIN:

  1. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this case. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person's lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of the offence.
  2. This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction following refusal on the papers by the single judge.
  3. On 24 July 2023, following a trial in the Crown Court at Bristol before His Honour Judge Blair and a jury, the Applicant was convicted of the following offences: count 1, indecent assault, contrary to s.14(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956; count 3, indecency with a child, contrary to s.1(1) Indecency with Children Act 1960; count 5, sexual activity with a child, contrary to s.9(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003; and counts 6 and 7, sexual assault of a child under 13, contrary to s.7(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003.
  4. On the same date, the Applicant was sentenced to a total of 33 months' imprisonment.
  5. The Applicant filed his application for leave to appeal himself. It was 49 days out of time. In addition to the application for leave to appeal, therefore, he seeks an extension of time.
  6. The offences on the indictment spanned a period from 16 August 2003 to 17 August 2009 and involved two complainants. The first complainant, under count 1, was C1. When she was about 8, she had been using the toilet, which was upstairs in the Applicant's house. She was going downstairs. The Applicant was on the landing and asked if she loved him. He then grabbed her bottom, kissed her and tried to put his tongue in her mouth (count 1).
  7. On another occasion, at least a year after the first incident, C1 was in the Applicant's bedroom. The Applicant told C1 to hold something, which was his semi-erect penis (count 3).
  8. The final incident concerning C1 was when C1 was at the Applicant's house for a Halloween party. The Applicant had bought alcohol for the party. C1 came in from outside to use the toilet and bumped into the Applicant on the way in. He grabbed her bottom and tried to kiss her (count 5).
  9. C1 stated that she spent a lot of time at the Applicant's home when she was aged between 8 and 12 years, which is when the incidents would have occurred, albeit that she thought that the final incident occurred when she was aged 13.
  10. C2 was friends with the Applicant's children and used to stay over at the Applicant's house. The abuse took place when she was around the age of 9. C2 was in the Applicant's bedroom, using a laptop computer, and the Applicant was sitting on his bed. He asked her to go over to him. The Applicant pulled C2 onto his lap. He was grinding underneath her. He grabbed her breasts and tried to kiss her (count 6).
  11. On a further occasion, C2 was staying at the Applicant's house. C2 was in bed, half asleep, when the Applicant came into the room, pulled down the covers, sat on top of her and grabbed her breasts (count 7).
  12. At the trial the prosecution relied on the evidence of C1, and the evidence of C1's mother as to how C1 used to go to the Applicant's home, but there was a time when she did not want to go anymore. Later, C1 told her of the abuse. They also relied upon the evidence of SH, who went to a secondary with C1. C1 had told her that she was abused by the Applicant.
  13. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence which was read of HW, who had gone to secondary school with C1. C1 had told her that she had been abused as a child. Her recollection was that C1 told her that the abuse was by the Applicant.
  14. Finally, in relation to C2, the prosecution relied on the evidence which was read of LG, who worked with C2 and who recalled a time when C2 told her that she was abused when she was younger and the Applicant would touch her breasts when she was staying at his house. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of C2's mother that C2 would sometimes ask not to go over to the Applicant's house if she had been invited, but her mother never understood why. The evidence of C2's mother was read to the jury as hearsay. The Applicant's trial counsel did not oppose the admission of the evidence as hearsay, but the jury were properly directed that it was not evidence that was admitted, and they were given proper guidance in the summing up as to their assessment of that evidence.
  15. Finally, the officer in the case gave evidence that, when the Applicant was arrested, he made a significant statement when he said: "But they don't even know each other, to my knowledge".
  16. The defence case was a denial in relation to the allegations made by both C1 and C2. The Applicant's contention was that the allegations were false. In relation to C1, he said that he never kissed her using his tongue, or grabbed her bottom, or showed her his penis. He would never have been alone in his bedroom with C1. He never kissed C2 or grabbed her breasts. He did not make her sit on his lap, nor did he grind himself against her.
  17. The Applicant gave evidence at his trial in his own defence.
  18. In his renewed application for leave to appeal, the Applicant has advanced the following grounds:
  19. (1) Evidence of C1's previous complaints against other men should have been adduced at his trial.

    (2) He asked his barrister for statements, and they were not provided. He would have called these people as defence witnesses. His barrister would not do as he asked.

    (3) Statements were not obtained from his wife or his children by the police or by his defence team. No defence witnesses were called. This impacted on his case.

    (4) If these statements had been taken, it would have shown that the complainants had misled the court.

    (5) C1 misled the court and C2 was evasive when she gave evidence.

    (6) The mother of C2 was not present at court to be cross-examined and her statement was read, which was unfair.

  20. In view of the complainants made of the trial representatives, the Applicant has waived legal professional privilege. The Applicant's trial counsel and solicitor have responded to the allegations made against them. The court is always grateful for the care and attention taken by the representatives who provide such information which is important in the context of any application for leave to appeal.
  21. In turn, the Applicant has responded to what his representatives have said, and we have considered all of those details.
  22. The Crown has provided a Respondent's Notice.
  23. The single judge refused leave to appeal. We, of course, have considered the application afresh, but we have reached the same conclusion as the single judge.
  24. The Applicant complains that the evidence that C1 had made previous complaints about other men was not adduced at his trial. No application was made to adduce such evidence at his trial. We can see no basis on which such an application could have been made or would have been successful. The Applicant wished to adduce such evidence, not as evidence of other sexual activity involving C1, but because it was, the Applicant believed, evidence that she had manufactured other complaints – in other words, that she had made previously other false allegations. As such, the application would have been to admit bad character evidence under section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. There was no evidential basis on which to make such an application. Had it been pursued at trial, it would have failed. This proposed ground of appeal has, therefore, no prospect of success.
  25. The decision as to which witnesses to call to give evidence requires an assessment by the lawyers of whether the relevant witness has relevant evidence to give and whether tactically it is in the defendant's best interests to call that witness. The Applicant wanted to call two witnesses, DL and JM. He was advised that this was a risky course of action. The Applicant accepted that advice. There is nothing to suggest that that advice was wrong. Therefore, this proposed ground of appeal has no real prospect of success.
  26. The issue at the trial was whether the jury were sure that the complainants were telling the truth. The Applicant's wife and children had no relevant and admissible evidence to give on that issue. The decision not to call them was correct. Consequently, this proposed ground of appeal has no real prospect of success.
  27. Finally, the remaining proposed grounds advanced by the Applicant are various ways of complaining that the jury should not have believed the evidence of the complainants.
  28. At a criminal trial it is for the jury to assess the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses. Unless there has been a material misdirection of the jury on some issue of law, or some other unfairness in the way that the trial has been conducted, the Court of Appeal will not interfere with a jury's verdict. As such, these remaining proposed grounds of appeal have no real prospect of success.
  29. For those reasons, the renewed application for leave to appeal and the application for an extension of time are refused.
  30. _______________________________

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010