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 >> Duckworth, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 602 (25 March 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/602.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 602

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

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 602
CASE NO 202401904/B5

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT PRESTON
HHJ MEDLAND CP No: 04ZL2890123

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
25 March 2025

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELL
MR JUSTICE GOSS
MRS JUSTICE THORNTON DBE

____________________

REX

- v -

AUSTIN NEIL DUCKWORTH

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript 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
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    MRS JUSTICE THORNTON:

    Introduction

  1. The applicant renews his application for an extension of time (four days) in which to seek leave to appeal against conviction, following refusal by the single judge.
  2. On 12 April 2024 the applicant was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of murder, for which he was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for life with a minimum term of 17 years, less the 231 days spent on remand.
  3. Facts

  4. The background facts were as follows. The applicant is the son of the deceased who died on 12 October 2023 following an assault on him by the applicant on 26 August 2023. The assault resulted in a bleed on the deceased's brain. The deceased, whilst still alive, was taken to hospital in an ambulance and emergency surgery was carried out. As a result, the deceased's Warfarin medication had to be stopped. The deceased subsequently suffered a stroke. The stroke ultimately led to the development of terminal pneumonia which is a common complication following prolonged hospitalisation due to a head injury.
  5. At the trial it was the prosecution's case that in repeatedly assaulting the deceased on 26 August 2023 it had been the applicant's intention either to kill him or to cause him really serious harm. The prosecution relied on the victim's account of the assault to a friend and police, the evidence of paramedics, the medical evidence and messages by the applicant about killing his father, as well as evidence of a series of documented incidents of abuse and violence by the applicant towards his father leading up to the attack on 26 August 2023.
  6. Grounds of appeal

  7. There are eight grounds of appeal in the appeal form which we have considered, and which may be summarised as follows:
  8. 1. insufficient evidence for a conviction;

    2. concerns about the way in which the majority verdict was arrived at;

    3. the applicant did not agree the agreed facts;

    4. concerns about the strength of the medical evidence;

    5. no direct evidence of the applicant committing the offence;

    6. unfairness in relation to the police interview;

    7. issues in relation to the family and the inheritance; and

    8. administrative errors on the prosecution's part.

    Reasons of the single judge

  9. In refusing permission to appeal, the single judge said as follows:
  10. "The evidence was not wholly dependent on the accounts given and recorded or delivered at the time by your father, although they were compelling. There was also a long history of aggression and assault by you upon him, which the jury were entitled to take into account. There was also direct eyewitness evidence of your presence just outside the scene at the critical time. Hence the 'circumstantial' evidence was extremely strong. There is no necessity for there to be forensic or scientific evidence before there can be an entirely proper conviction. The fact that the agreed facts were not agreed by you personally is also irrelevant. Your counsel agreed the facts, quite properly. In any event none of the agreed facts would have been disturbed by any other evidence, and I note you chose to give no evidence (as was your right). None of the agreed facts was the immediate reason for the conviction. I also note you did not seek to waive privilege and you have not criticised your counsel. I should not be misunderstood: I see no basis for criticising your counsel.
    The medical evidence did not specify you as the perpetrator, merely the nature of the injuries and the mechanism of death. That body of evidence was perfectly proper, and properly admitted.
    Whether or not you were aware your bail conditions had been extended is irrelevant. Nor was the evidence concerning you as your father's legatee: had that been admitted it is likely it would have made things worse for you.
    It is also irrelevant that you were on remand 'longer than you should have been'. You would still have been tried on the same evidence.
    The fact that this was a majority verdict is also irrelevant. The proper conditions for a majority verdict were in place and the judge's direction was also properly given."

    Discussion

  11. We agree with the assessment of the single judge for the reasons given by him.
  12. In addition, we have considered a letter from the applicant received by the Court of Appeal office on 7 January 2025, after the decision of the single judge, putting forward a further reason for contesting the conviction, namely that the applicant's assault was not the cause of the bleed on his father's brain which was caused by smoking and high blood pressure.
  13. We are not persuaded there is any arguable merit in this new ground of appeal. The agreed facts summarised the medical evidence agreed at trial. The cause of death was a blunt force head injury which caused a large bleed on the brain. Agreed fact 35(e) states that the deceased would not have died when he did, had he not been assaulted.
  14. Decision

  15. The renewed application for permission to appeal is refused on its merits and accordingly it is not necessary for the court to address the extension of time.

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