Leave to argue new grounds refused where there is no risk of injustice

Appeal against conviction for rape - appellant pleaded guilty to assault causing harm contrary to s. 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 against same complainant - appellant and complainant had been in a relationship for approximately 4-5 years - appellant initially denied having been in the complainant's flat but later admitted having been there and having assaulted the complainant - 83 grounds of appeal brought initially but appellant later brought motion seeking to substitute three new grounds, averred by solicitor to be addressed in a general sense by some of the original 83 grounds - Court of Appeal not satisfied that there was any correlation between the new grounds and the original grounds - therefore necessary to consider whether refusal to allow leave to argue new grounds would amount to a miscarriage of justice by examining them individually - whether appellant should be allowed to argue that trial judge failed to properly direct the jury in his explanation of the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof - whether appellant should be allowed to argue that trial judge failed to instruct the jury that where two views on any part of the case were possible that the jury should adopt that which is favourable to the accused - whether appellant should be allowed to argue that trial judge misdirected the jury in respect of lies told by the appellant.