The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed M.J.’s application for a certificate allowing him to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924. It ruled that none of the proposed legal points met the statutory threshold of exceptional public importance and desirability in the public interest.
The application followed the court’s June 2014 dismissal of M.J.’s appeal against four convictions for indecent assault. The convictions arose from a 2010 retrial. M.J. had been sentenced to six years in prison, with the final three years suspended on terms. His appeal against sentence was abandoned during the earlier appeal hearing.
The earlier appeal concerned, among other matters, the admissibility of evidence about an alleged family confrontation in the early 1990s, jury directions and a requested “Cronin” direction. The court’s June 2014 judgment rejected the grounds pursued. In this application, M.J. sought to raise questions about self-incrimination and whether a trial judge must give a warning or direction on which the defence says it relied. A later motion added grounds concerning the constitutionality of section 29, case stated procedures, trial evidence and the right to silence.
The court said a section 29 application must identify a point of law arising from its decision that is not only important to the individual, but of public importance, and show that a Supreme Court decision is warranted in the public interest. It stressed that the provision does not provide a further appeal simply because a person considers the Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision unsatisfactory.
The court found that the questions about the family confrontation and the “Cronin” direction had already been examined in the substantive appeal and arose from the particular circumstances of the case. It said the added grounds concerning section 29’s constitutionality had not been argued in the substantive appeal and could not justify a certificate in this application. The court also found no applicable process for referring the other proposed questions to the Supreme Court outside section 29.
The court therefore dismissed the application. It did not grant a certificate for a Supreme Court appeal. The ruling addressed the certification application, not a fresh hearing of the underlying conviction appeal.