R v Gary Robinson [2025] EWCA Crim 689

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.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2025] EWCA Crim 689Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Thursday, 15 May 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMR JUSTICE GOOSEMRS JUSTICE EADY DBE
Between
REXCrownV
Between
GARY ROBINSON__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________The APPLICANT appeared in person for in person_________J U D G M E N T
[1]On 24 January 2023, at the Crown Court sitting at Bournemouth, a jury unanimously found the applicant guilty of one count of criminal damage (count 4) and two counts of witness intimidation (counts 5 and 6). The applicant was acquitted by the jury on separate charges of rape (counts 1 and 2) and assault by penetration (count 3). On the same date, the applicant was sentenced to an overall term of eight months.[2]Before the Crown Court, the applicant was represented under a representation order by solicitors and leading counsel.[3]Acting in person, some 119 days out of time, the applicant made an application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction. That application was refused by the single judge. Before us, the applicant applies for an extension of time (of over 10 months) in which to renew his earlier application.[4]When lodging his appeal, the applicant explained that he had previously made several attempts to pursue an appeal but had suffered severe bouts of depression and mental health episodes, which had caused him to make attempts on his life. Having received help, the applicant said he was then (in mid-June 2023) in a better place.[5]Having lodged his appeal, the applicant then sent further submissions to the Criminal Appeal Office (“CAO”), by emails of 10 and 21 July 2023, 7, 21 and 24 August 2023 and 27 October 2023. As the applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal included criticisms of those acting for him at the trial, and he had agreed to waive privilege, responses were obtained from his former counsel (who attached relevant extracts from notes of the evidence given orally at trial) and solicitors. The applicant provided a reply to this material on 4 October 2023. In addition, a respondent’s notice was filed by the Crown dated 30 October 2023 and the applicant provided his response to this on 3 November 2023. On 5 December 2023 the applicant sent a further email to the CAO.[6]These materials, along with the relevant documentation from the proceedings below, were considered by the single judge (Bryan J), who rejected the application for an extension of time (the applicant’s explanation being uncorroborated and failing to demonstrate a good reason for the delay) but was, in any event, unable to see any merit in the applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal or that his convictions were arguably unsafe.[7]A copy of the single judge’s order was sent to the applicant on 26 January 2024. No renewal application was received within the required 14-day period, but, by notice dated 16 December 2024, the applicant made a request to renew his application for leave to appeal. Subsequently, by email of 3 January 2025 the applicant explained that he was making this application out of time because several new pieces of evidence had come to light, which he had now sent to the CAO in support of his application for leave to appeal. The Facts[8]In or around 2021, the applicant started working as an activity instructor at a residential outdoor activity centre. The complainant (“C”) also worked at the centre, holding a more senior managerial position. Employees at the centre resided on site.[9]In September 2021, the applicant and C began Facebook messaging each other in what C described as a “flirty” manner. On a date between 1 September 2021 and 31 October 2021, they engaged in one instance of sexual intercourse which, following C’s subsequent report to the police on 9 March 2022, formed the subject matter of counts 1 to 3.[10]On 10 March 2022, the applicant was arrested. In interview he denied the allegation of rape, describing the incident as entirely consensual. He was released on bail with two conditions:(1) not to contact C directly or indirectly; and(2) not to go to the activity centre save for any pre-arranged appointment with the management.[11]On Monday 4 April 2022 at 7.00 am, while in her bedroom at the site, C heard a loud bang outside which startled her. This was followed by a second bang, causing her bedroom door to shake. Another employee, who was living next door to C, heard the bang, which she thought was someone kicking C’s door. C then heard the applicant’s voice shout, calling out her name followed by “you cunt”. There was then a third bang which resulted from a rock having been thrown at C’s double-glazed window. C’s neighbour looked out of the window and saw the applicant walking away. For her part, C immediately telephoned the police.[12]The applicant then climbed to the top of an abseiling tower, shouting out:
“It's because of that whore”
. Police attended and negotiators tried to coax him from the top of the tower but the applicant, with a rope around his neck, climbed over the edge of the tower and lowered himself as if to hang himself. Police and officers from the fire and rescue service quickly pulled him back up and he was given medical attention. These events formed the bases of counts 4 (criminal damage) and 5 (witness intimidation).[13]On 21 April 2022 the applicant posted entries on Facebook about C, including a photograph of her. He revealed that she was the complainant in a rape case and made derogatory remarks about her. This formed the basis for count 6 (witness intimidation).[14]On 26 April 2022 the applicant was arrested for witness intimidation. In interview he described C as “a lying, manipulative person”, who had continually harassed him and caused him grief over several months. He was asked about the events on 4 April 2022 and he said that he had complaints against his employer and was going to highlight them by going on site to kill himself, and was also going to kill himself because of the rape allegation. He did not go to the site to scare C. When asked if he was angry with C, the applicant said “sometimes”. Asked if he wanted to stop her pursuing the allegations he said “no”. When asked about the detail of what happened to C that day the applicant made no comment. He was asked about posting comments on Facebook on 21 April 2022 and he made no meaningful comment. Proceedings before the Crown Court[15]In the applicant’s defence case statement in the Crown Court proceedings, in relation to counts 4 to 6, he said:
“The Crown are put to proof as to these offences. The applicant did not have any intention of intimidating anyone whilst attending the [activity] centre. Rather his intention was to take his own life.”
[16]The applicant gave evidence at trial. In respect of counts 4 to 6,

the judge summarised his evidence to the jury as follows:

“Mr Robinson said: “I accept smashing the window.”
And you may think, members of the jury, there is little, if any issue, regarding that allegation on Count 4, it’s a matter for you. “I didn’t do that to intimidate [C], I wasn’t thinking about interfering with the investigation. I did post a picture of her and uploaded the post, but I was not intending to obstruct or interfere with the investigation”. He was cross-examined about that. He said:
“I was released on bail on 10th March, [it was a] there was a condition. I was not to contact her indirectly or directly. I knew that was to protect her and make her feel safe during the investigation. I went on 4th April, in the early morning to highlight [the employer’s] inadequacies and kill myself. I went to the store, I got a rope and took it to the top of the tower. Then I went to [C]’s room”. “Why” [he was asked]. He said: “I don’t know why.” “Why did you go there between 7 and 7.30 in the morning?” “I don’t know. I think she would be terrified when I threw a rock at her window and said ‘she was a cunt’. I wouldn’t have done that if she hadn’t made the rape complaint [he said]. I didn’t go there to deter her from being a witness. I wanted to end my life because of the allegation.”
Of 21st April, he said:
“... The purpose was not to intimidate her. I was not then, nor on 4th April, trying to stop her continuing with her complaint”
. He was cross-examined about that. He said: He said: “I don’t know why.”[17]In directing the jury as to the issues it had to determine in relation to counts 4 to 6,

the judge explained:

“... Count 4, breaking the complainant’s bedroom window. There has been really pretty confined compass of evidence in relation to this. One question, are we sure he deliberately damaged the window? If no, not guilty. If yes, guilty on Count 4. Count 5 is 4th April when her window was damaged. Are we sure he deliberately damaged the window and/or verbally abused the complainant? If no, not guilty. If yes, question 2, are we sure that when he did that, it intimidated the complainant? If no, not guilty. If yes, the last question, are we sure that in behaving as he did, he intended to intimidate her and intended that that intimidation would put her off pursuing her allegations? No, not guilty. If yes, guilty. ... the final count (6), which was posting the Facebook message on ... 21st April, are we sure he deliberately posted the message? You may think it was not a great deal of dispute about that. No, not guilty but if yes, question 2, are we sure that when he did that, it intimidated her? If no, not guilty. If yes, final question, are we sure that in behaving as he did, he intended to intimidate her and he intended that that intimidation would put her off pursuing her allegations? If no, not guilty. If yes, guilty.”
No issue has been taken (or could be) with the judge's directions in these respects.[18]The jury acquitted the applicant on counts 1 to 3 (rape and assault by penetration) but returned unanimous verdicts finding him guilty on counts 4 to 6.[19]The judge went on to sentence the applicant (who was of previously good character) to a total term of eight months. The applicant at no stage sought to appeal against his sentence The proposed appeal and the applications for extensions of time[20]We have taken time to read the very large quantity of material that has been presented to us by the applicant. We have also received his submissions at the hearing before us today. We understand that the applicant continues to find it very difficult to deal with the allegations that formed the basis of counts 1 to 3 and that, in his view, the offences for which he was convicted have to be seen as related to those allegations.[21]Although we understand the applicant’s perspective on these matters, the appeal before us is, of course, one which relates to the matters for which the applicant was convicted and that must be our focus.[22]Returning to the proposed grounds of appeal, we consider these can properly be summarised as follows:(1) The applicant was prejudiced because a statement was not obtained from the police negotiator (to whom he spoke for some six hours, explaining why he had attended at the activity centre site), and/or because information was not provided regarding the delay/interactions in retrieving statements from particular witnesses.(2) The location of C at the time he attended the site was unclear.(3) Leading counsel representing the applicant at trial had told the applicant’s mother that he would be found not guilty of ‘the bad things’ (rape/assault) but would ‘have to be found guilty of something’; he had made no attempt to defend the applicant, and never properly explored the Facebook post of 21 April 2022 or the applicant’s motivation.(4) The police never re-interviewed the applicant regarding his complaint that the C had herself inappropriately touched him, notwithstanding he had raised this only shortly before her allegation that he had raped her.(5) There were disclosure issues.[23]As the history makes clear, the application to renew has been made considerably out of time (over ten months). The application to renew itself relates to a prior application for an extension of time, given that the original application for leave to appeal was made some 119 days late.[24]In respect of the first delay, the applicant relied on his mental health problems, albeit he has never provided any medical evidence by way of corroboration.[25]As for the further delay in relation to the application to renew, the applicant says that this is because new evidence has come to light that supports his proposed appeal. He says that this is material that was “hidden” by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in unused material. In particular, the applicant relies on a statement made to the employer by C on 21 February 2022, which he contends would have cast doubt on her allegations of rape/assault. He further relies on this, and other material he says was hidden from him which related to safeguarding failures raised with C (which included the applicant’s complaint that C had inappropriately touched him). It is the applicant’s case that rather than addressing these matters, C instead made her allegations against him. The applicant says this material would have demonstrated that C, and others, lied both in the investigation and in giving evidence at trial. The applicant also seeks to rely on a report he says was made by the officer in the case on 21 April 2022, which acknowledged that he might not have been aware that the Facebook post would be considered witness intimidation.[26]More generally, it is a central part of the applicant’s case in support of his application for leave to appeal that his trial was unfair because (as he contends) the police destroyed evidence that was exculpatory of him, demonstrating that he had said that he regretted his actions and had not wanted to hurt C or scare her, and supporting his case that he was broken and suicidal. The applicant further relies on material that he submitted in various complaints he made relating to these matters: to the relevant Police Force on 6 February 2023 and then to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (“IOPC”) on 10 July and 12 November 2024. The applicant also complains that his barrister did not properly represent him at trial, contending that he (the KC in question) “conspired with the CPS to convict me of witness intimidation” and says he failed to call relevant witnesses or pass on relevant information (relating to the applicant's complaints about the police investigation) to the judge. Discussion and conclusions[27]We have first considered the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal. Although those grounds do not, of themselves, explain the delays that the applicant needs to address, the potential merit of the proposed appeal would be a relevant matter when considering any application for an extension of time. In applying ourselves to this task, we have noted that the main focus of the applicant’s submissions relates to the allegations made against him which formed the first three counts on the indictment. Given the nature of those allegations, that is understandable, but the application for leave to appeal relates to those matters for which the applicant was convicted, not the charges on which he was acquitted. We acknowledge the applicant's very real sense of grievance about the fact that the charges of rape and assault were pursued against him, but we are not the IOPC and our jurisdiction is limited to considering the proposed appeal in respect of the applicant’s convictions for criminal damage and witness intimidation. The issue for us is whether the applicant’s convictions on those charges were unsafe.[28]In respect of the charges on which the applicant was convicted, there was no real dispute as to what had actually taken place: notwithstanding the terms of his bail, the applicant had (as he has accepted before us today) attended the place where C resided, had thrown a rock breaking her window and had shouted insults about her. He subsequently posted details about C, and about the allegations she had made against him, on Facebook. As was his entitlement, the applicant had put the prosecution to proof on these matters, although, in respect of the witness intimidation offences, he contended that he was motivated by a desire to expose malpractice on the part of the employer, not by the proceedings against him. As he has repeated to us, it was his case that his intention was not to intimidate C or seek to cause her to withdraw her allegations; rather his intention was to kill himself.[29]We note that both C and the applicant gave evidence at trial. We have seen the notes of the applicant’s cross-examination which confirms the position we have summarised in the preceding paragraph and as set out within the judge’s summing up to the jury. The jury had the opportunity to hear the applicant give evidence, explaining his motivation when attending the activity centre site on 4 April 2022 and in making the Facebook post on 21 April 2022. Even if admissible, potential hearsay evidence from the police negotiator (who could only testify as to what the applicant had told him) would not have taken matters any further. Witnesses from the activity centre were cross-examined about their lack of support for the applicant and the fact that he had made a suicide attempt on 4 April 2022 and the fact that he had suffered mental distress was plainly before the jury. The jury had, however, also heard C’s testimony in which she had stated that she was present in her room on 4 April 2022 and had said how she felt. That evidence was corroborated by the read statement of her neighbour. Issues regarding the evidence of the applicant’s own allegations against C, and how these were dealt with by the employer, could only have gone to counts 1 to 3, on which the applicant was acquitted.[30]Moreover, the jury would have understood – as it had been directed by the judge – that in relation to count 4 it had to be sure that the applicant had deliberately damaged the window and that, for the purposes of counts 5 and 6, it not only had to be sure that C was intimidated by the applicant’s actions but also that he had intended to intimidate C and intended that that intimidation would put her off pursuing her allegations. There is, we are clear, nothing in the complaints made in the grounds that we have summarised above.[31]We are also entirely satisfied that the suggestion that leading counsel in some way colluded with the prosecution to secure the applicant's convictions on counts 4 to 6 is baseless. Privilege having been waived, counsel has acknowledged that he gave the applicant appropriate advice as to the difficulties he faced in respect of these matters. It is, nonetheless, apparent that the applicant’s case was fully put before the jury. We note the prosecution’s description of counsel’s representation of the applicant as having been “thorough and robust” - a description that might be said to be supported by the applicant’s acquittals on counts 1 to 3. The allegation at proposed ground (3) is without foundation and does not begin to identify a reasonably arguable basis for thinking that the applicant’s convictions are unsafe.[32]Finally, we have considered the applicant’s complaint that evidence was “hidden” from him and that this explains the lateness of this renewal application. We cannot see that this in fact provides any explanation as to why the application to renew was made over 10 months out of time. In any event, the matters of which the applicant complains are simply not relevant to this appeal:(a) the statement made by C on 22 February 2022 pre-dated the incidents in issue on counts 4 to 6 and could only have been relevant to counts 1 to 3 on which he was acquitted;(b) similarly, evidence relating to the applicant’s complaint of sexual harassment against C might have formed part of his case as to what he said was C’s motivation for making false allegations against him, but it would not have assisted in relation to the charges of criminal damage and witness intimidation;(c) as for whether the officer in the case acknowledged in the occurrence report that the applicant might not have been aware that his Facebook post would be considered witness intimidation, that would still have remained an issue for the jury to determine on the basis of the testimony given by the applicant at trial.[33]At no stage has the applicant provided medical evidence to corroborate his explanation for filing his application for leave to appeal over 100 days out of time. Equally, although able to pursue complaints to the IOPC, the applicant has provided no explanation as to why he waited over 10 months before seeking to renew his application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal.[34]In any event, we are satisfied that no arguable basis of appeal has been identified from the proposed grounds relied on by the applicant and that there is nothing that would suggest that his convictions are unsafe. Appreciating the applicant’s very real sense of continuing grievance, for all the reasons provided, we therefore refuse this application. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE36. Tel No: 020 7404 140037. Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk