Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant was charged with robbery and raised defences including mistaken identity and a medical condition inconsistent with committing the offence. The first trial took place in the Crown Court at Guildford on 14 December 2011 before Judge Matthews QC and a jury. Medical evidence was presented, and the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to six years' imprisonment on 15 December 2011.
The Applicant appealed on the basis that the list of previous convictions admitted as bad character evidence was incorrect. This court allowed the appeal on 4 July 2012 and ordered a retrial.
Following the order, directions were given on 27 July 2012 to obtain further medical evidence for the retrial. The retrial commenced on 5 November 2012, with more extensive medical evidence presented. The Applicant was again convicted and sentenced to six years' imprisonment on 7 November 2012.
After the retrial, counsel advised that no grounds for appeal existed, and this advice was confirmed in writing by solicitors on 19 November 2012. In April 2013, new solicitors were instructed.
On 13 February 2014, an application was made for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, focusing on the first trial, which had been set aside. The application papers showed that Legal Aid funding had been extended on two occasions and that counsel and solicitors had the advice given after the retrial. The grounds of appeal, settled by counsel, essentially argued a failure to call proper medical evidence at the first trial.
Counsel later withdrew support for the appeal, citing lack of relevant information, and attempts to withdraw the appeal by solicitors and the Applicant's mother were ineffective. The court found the appeal to be frivolous and vexatious and suitable for summary dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the application for leave to appeal should be summarily dismissed as frivolous or vexatious without a full hearing.
- What procedural safeguards should be implemented when fresh counsel or solicitors are instructed in a case.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Achogbuo [2014] EWCA Crim 567 |
Requirement for new counsel or solicitors to consult previous representatives where criticisms or unsubstantiated grounds are raised. |
The court emphasized that fresh counsel or solicitors must consult those previously involved to verify facts, unless exceptional circumstances exist. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the procedural history and the grounds of appeal, noting that the appeal focused solely on the first trial, which had already been quashed. Despite further attempts to pursue the appeal, counsel withdrew support due to lack of relevant information. The court found the appeal to be frivolous and vexatious, justifying summary dismissal without a full hearing.
The court also highlighted the importance of communication between new and previous legal representatives to avoid elementary procedural errors. It mandated that fresh solicitors or counsel must contact those previously involved to confirm facts, barring exceptional and rare circumstances.
The court noted the failure of the Applicant’s solicitors to attend a requested hearing and referred the matter to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority for potential investigation, with possible referral to the Bar Standards Board if counsel conduct issues arise.
Holding and Implications
The court SUMMARILY DISMISSED the application for leave to appeal on the basis that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and could be decided without a full hearing.
The direct effect is that the Applicant’s attempt to appeal the conviction following the retrial is ended. No new legal precedent was established beyond reinforcing procedural safeguards regarding communication between successive legal representatives.