" I have considered the papers in your case and your grounds of appeal. You have submitted a quite enormous volume of material in support of your application. This includes a 17-page handwritten form NG, an 18-page letter, a 4-page grounds of appeal document, a 61-page ‘Updated Enhanced Appeal Analysis’, a 16-page response to the RN, a number of ‘response’ documents and numerous emails and attachments. I have considered all this material. I have also read the Respondents’ Notice and the responses to your grounds from your former barrister and solicitors. Despite careful consideration of all this material, I have been unable to identify a single ground of appeal which is properly arguable. The RN and your counsel’s observations deal convincingly with all your complaints. In short summary, my views on your principal grounds are as follows: 1. The judge’s decision in relation to the complainant’s herpes. The judge gave an ex parte ruling on this topic. Her conclusions were correct for the reasons she gave. The probative value of this evidence to the issues in the case was minimal. There was no justification for admitting such material which would obviously have been embarrassing and distressing for the complainant. The judge’s comments on the prevalence of herpes, whether right or wrong, did not impact on her ruling on admissibility. Furthermore, it is to be noted that had this material been admitted it was likely to have been supportive of the Crown’s case against you. It certainly does not render your conviction unsafe. 2. Disclosure No significant complaint about disclosure was made during the trial and there is nothing to suggest that in fact disclosure was deficient. 3. The Quality of your representation The response of your counsel to the numerous criticisms you make of him are entirely convincing. He dealt appropriately with all issues that arose in the trial. He was limited by his professional obligations as to the extent to which he could comply with some of your instructions. 4. Additional evidence I can discern no properly arguable ground of appeal under this heading. 5. The jury There is no evidence that any member of the jury had any connection to the facts of this case which made it inappropriate for them to serve on the jury. No such complaint was made during the trial. 6. Instruction of a King’s Counsel The Crown was entitled to instruct counsel of their choice. The decision to instruct leading counsel was perfectly proper, especially given the difficulties the Crown had in securing the services of an appropriately senior junior counsel. 7. The judge’s summing-up The judge’s summing up was entirely adequate. Her decision not to give her views on the evidence was perfectly proper. 8. Abuse of process No complaint was made during the trial to the effect that these proceedings were an abuse of the process and there were no grounds for doing so. 9. Additional Complaints You make numerous other complaints, but there is no merit in any of them. For example, as to the strength of the evidence, notably that of Dr Brook. But these were matters for the jury. The medical evidence adduced in support of the Crown’s case was sufficient for the purpose. There are no grounds for concern about the complainant’s mental state; no application was made during the trial to exclude her evidence on the grounds of her mental health. Standing back from the detail, I have been able to find [anything] which supports an argument that your conviction was unsafe and accordingly leave to appeal is refused."
"The conviction of Leon Curtis is contended to be unsafe due to a multitude of factors that fundamentally undermine the integrity of the investigation, prosecution, and trial process. The appeal presents an exhaustive analysis of these factors, supported by case law, new evidence, and revelations of material perjury by the key witness. The cumulative effect of these issues strongly indicates a potential miscarriage of justice, necessitating a thorough review of the conviction."