The Court of Appeal has refused Sidney Sutton leave to seek judicial review aimed at stopping his pending Circuit Court retrial. The court found he had not shown an arguable case that any of the grounds he raised created a real risk of an unfair trial that could not be addressed by the trial judge.
Sutton was convicted in 2017 of assault causing harm, four counts of assault and producing a knife, over an incident in February 2016. The Court of Appeal later quashed those convictions because of an error involving the editing of interview memoranda. It ordered a retrial in May 2021. The court said Sutton is presumed innocent of the charges awaiting retrial, but has not been acquitted.
Sutton argued that the retrial should be prohibited because evidence had been lost or suppressed, there had been delay and prejudicial publicity, his previous legal representation was ineffective, and the prosecution and retrial amounted to an abuse of process. His claims about the underlying incident, including that his wife assaulted him and deliberately injured herself, were his allegations; the appeal did not determine guilt or innocence.
On the claimed missing evidence, Sutton said a crime-scene report about blood-spatter evidence had been withheld. The court said testimony that the scene had been technically examined did not establish that a report was prepared. It was not satisfied that a report had likely existed and then been maliciously and intentionally withheld. It noted that Sutton could seek disclosure, question prosecution witnesses at trial and call his own expert on the photographs. He could also ask the trial judge to address any unfairness arising from missing evidence.
The court rejected the other grounds at the leave stage. It said Sutton had not shown how the passage of time caused prejudice that made a fair trial impossible, and that the time since the publicity, together with appropriate trial directions, did not establish a real risk of unfairness. Whether to use a lawyer or represent himself was Sutton’s choice, the court said, and did not itself affect whether the trial would be fair. It also found no basis for the abuse-of-process claim and said the challenges to the prosecution and retrial were out of time.
The ruling concerns permission to bring judicial-review proceedings; it does not decide the charges at the pending retrial. Sutton also had a separate miscarriage-of-justice application before the Court of Appeal, adjourned for mention on 17 January 2025.