WENDY KNOWLES OR GRAHAM v. HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by the Applicant for an extension of time to lodge a Notice of Intention to Appeal against a conviction for murder. The Applicant was convicted by a jury of murdering her cohabitee by repeated stabbing, with no dispute that she caused the death. The trial focused on whether the offence was murder or culpable homicide, with defences of diminished responsibility and provocation rejected by the jury. The Applicant did not lodge a Notice of Intention to Appeal within the statutory two-week period following conviction and only sought to initiate the appeal process nearly five years later. The application for extension of time had previously been presented in a different form but was withdrawn and re-presented. The initial grounds relied upon were defective legal representation at trial. The trial judge and subsequent proceedings considered psychiatric evidence relating to the Applicant's mental state at the time of the offence, including reports from Crown psychiatrists and a Professor Thomson, who initially did not support a diminished responsibility defence but later produced a revised report supporting it. Further psychiatric opinions were obtained over several years. The Applicant’s current application was ultimately refused by the court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant should be granted an extension of time to lodge a Notice of Intention to Appeal nearly five years after conviction.
2. Whether the grounds of appeal, particularly those relating to defective legal representation and diminished responsibility, have sufficient merit to justify such an extension.
3. How the principles of finality and certainty in criminal justice apply to late appeals and the balance of justice in this context.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant sought to rely on defective legal representation at trial as grounds for appeal.
• New psychiatric reports, including a revised report from Professor Thomson and a recent unsolicited report from Dr Quinn, were submitted to support a plea of diminished responsibility, potentially justifying a fresh evidence appeal.
• The Applicant requested further time to consider advancing a fresh evidence ground of appeal based on underlying mental disorder and battered partner syndrome.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent emphasized the statutory time limits and the importance of finality and certainty in criminal proceedings.
• The Respondent contended that the Applicant had not provided an adequate explanation for the significant delay in lodging the appeal.
• The Respondent argued that the psychiatric evidence at trial and subsequent reports did not establish a sufficient basis to overturn the conviction or support the defective representation claim.
• The Respondent opposed any further extension of time to explore fresh evidence grounds, given the prolonged history of the case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by underscoring the importance of the statutory time limits for lodging a Notice of Intention to Appeal and the functions such a notice serves, including alerting the trial judge and preserving evidence. The Applicant’s failure to lodge the notice within the two-week period and the subsequent delay of nearly five years weighed heavily against granting an extension.

The court reviewed the psychiatric evidence presented at trial and post-trial reports, noting that the initial psychiatric opinions did not support a diminished responsibility defence due to substance abuse masking any underlying disorder. The later reports, including one from Professor Thomson and a recent unsolicited one from Dr Quinn, suggested a possible underlying disorder but did not sufficiently challenge the trial evidence or establish a clear basis for a successful appeal.

The court emphasized the principles of finality and certainty in criminal proceedings, requiring that late appeals be supported by strong grounds and reasonable explanations for delay. It found the Applicant’s explanation for the delay inadequate and the grounds for appeal lacking substantial merit, particularly as the defective representation claim was undermined by the new psychiatric evidence and the absence of a fresh evidence appeal claim.

Although the Applicant sought further time to investigate fresh evidence grounds, the court declined this, considering the extensive prior investigation and the availability of alternative avenues such as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to examine new evidence and potential miscarriages of justice.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for an extension of time to lodge a Notice of Intention to Appeal against conviction.

This decision directly affects the Applicant by closing the opportunity to initiate an appeal process at this late stage. No new precedent was established, and the court reaffirmed the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and the principles of finality and certainty in the criminal justice system. The court indicated that any consideration of new psychiatric evidence or claims of miscarriage of justice would be more appropriately handled by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission rather than through a late appeal application.