Dave Lee Travis loses appeal bid

Dave Lee Travis loses appeal bid

Photo from the Belfast Telegraph


We covered at length the two trials of Dave Lee Travis that resulted in his conviction was a single count of indecent assault for which he received a suspended sentence on 26th September 2014.

On 8th December 2015 it was reported that he was unsuccessful in appealing his conviction.


Grounds of Appeal

From the news reports, it was a renewed application to appeal (see our fact sheet on the appeals process here). That’s not the best of starts; it means that a Judge has already looked at it and decided that there are no arguable grounds.

We don’t know for sure what the grounds were, as they have not been made public. But it would appear to be that the major focus was on ‘fresh evidence’ – his barrister told the Court that “We have evidence now that (the complainant) lied to the jury“.

It is not clear what the (alleged) lie was, or whether there were any other grounds of appeal. But if there were, they didn’t impress the Court much, Hallett LJ saying ““We are driven to the conclusion that there are no arguable grounds of appeal and accordingly the application for leave to appeal must be refused“.



It is no surprise that DLT tried to appeal his conviction – he had very little to lose. As his lawyer said at the time, the court cases had“devastated his career, ruined his reputation, and damaged his finances beyond repair” and he said afterwards, “had cost him his living, his house and his wife’s health“.

That is, in reality, the end of the line for him. He can apply to the CCRC if there is further fresh evidence, but in a high profile case such as this it is likely that all the potential leads have been investigated.

Incidentally, it would be open to DLT to publish his grounds (anonymised of course so the name of the victim is not identified) so that we can all judge for ourselves whether or not he has grounds. I’ve never understood why this doesn’t happen more often.

We will return to the case when we get the judgement.

Dan is a barrister at 2 Dr. Johnson’s Buildings practising in crime.


  1. He should indeed publish his side, warts and all but no *name*, as you suggest – especially as the identity of the chortling “victim” is widely known anyway. It would allow us then to just how much of a witch hunt this been,*edited by admin*

    • Even with a guilty verdict victim(s) are not believed. If not guilty means the victim is a liar and a guilty means the victim is a liar presumably with the exception of the death or serious injury to the victim there is nothing which satisfies men like you that the victim has told the truth.

  2. L-E-S Not guilty does not mean the complainant is a liar: it means that the jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that s/he was not.

    I’m afraid no power on earth can make everyone believe that a guilty verdict was correct. Some people have an excuse (Ched Evans’s mother and sister, I don’t blame them for standing by their son and brother) and some don’t (his girlfriend on whom on any footing he cheated) but belief is not compulsory. There are probably cases (perhaps those involving a female defendant?) where you don’t accept that a conviction was right, and you never will. That’s your right as it is mine and Chris’s.