Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant, aged 72, was convicted on 18 May 2017 following a trial before HHJ Molyneux and a jury at the Crown Court for three counts of soliciting the murder of his long-term partner. He was sentenced on 14 July 2017 to 17 years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.
Trial counsel advised on appeals against both conviction and sentence, and applications for leave to appeal were filed. On 12 December 2017, a single judge refused leave to appeal in respect of both conviction and sentence, communicated to the parties on 10 January 2018.
Renewed applications were served on 30 January 2018 and listed before the full court on 27 June 2018. At that hearing, counsel representing the Applicant abandoned the renewed application for leave to appeal conviction but pursued the application regarding sentence. The court refused leave to appeal sentence in a judgment at [2018] EWCA 1577.
The Applicant contends that the abandonment of the renewed application for permission to appeal conviction was done without his knowledge or consent, which forms the basis of the current application to treat the abandonment as a nullity.
The underlying facts involved the Applicant soliciting three men to murder his partner, with evidence including recorded conversations and an undercover police officer. The Applicant maintained innocence, claiming the meetings were for research for a novel and that the relationship with the partner was not harmful, but was disbelieved at trial.
The application before the court focuses on the communications between the Applicant and his legal representatives in the period between sentencing and the Court of Appeal hearing regarding the abandonment of the appeal against conviction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the abandonment of the renewed application for permission to appeal conviction was made with the Applicant's knowledge and consent.
- Whether the abandonment of the appeal against conviction should be treated as a nullity.
- Whether, had the abandonment not occurred, the renewed application for permission to appeal conviction would have succeeded.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The abandonment of the appeal against conviction was done without his knowledge or agreement.
- He considered there were strong grounds for appeal against conviction.
- He was not informed of the concepts of "abandonment" or "loss of time order" until advised by new legal representatives after the fact.
- He denied receiving certain letters and disputed the accuracy of communications attributed to him.
Respondents' Arguments
- Counsel and solicitor advised the Applicant that pursuing the renewed application against conviction risked a loss of time order and that it should be abandoned.
- The Applicant accepted this advice and agreed to proceed only with the appeal against sentence.
- Documentary evidence and witness statements support that the Applicant was aware and consented to the abandonment.
- There was no merit in the renewed application for permission to appeal conviction, and a loss of time order was likely had it proceeded.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the communications between the Applicant and his legal representatives, including letters, emails, and oral evidence. It found that counsel had advised the Applicant that pursuing the appeal against conviction risked a loss of time order and that the appeal should be abandoned. The solicitor confirmed that this advice was explained to and accepted by the Applicant.
The court found the Applicant's denial of knowledge of abandonment and loss of time orders to be unconvincing in light of the documentary evidence, including a letter dated 18 January 2018 outlining the risks and the need for a decision, and an email sent on his behalf discussing the appeal process. The Applicant was found to have understood that only the appeal against sentence was being pursued.
Despite the Applicant's assertions that sentence was irrelevant to him, the court accepted the solicitor's evidence that sentence was important to the Applicant and that he was anxious to reduce it. The court also noted the Applicant's articulate and quick responses during the hearing, rejecting the notion that he was a passive recipient of advice.
Ultimately, the court was satisfied that the Applicant was content to and did abandon the appeal against conviction. The application to treat the abandonment as a nullity was therefore refused.
Further, the court considered that had the renewed application for permission to appeal conviction been considered on its merits, it would have been dismissed due to the safety of the convictions and the strength of the evidence presented at trial. The court noted that a loss of time order would likely have been made had the application proceeded.
Holding and Implications
The application to treat the abandonment of the appeal against conviction as a nullity is refused.
The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant's appeal against conviction remains abandoned and no further consideration of that appeal will be given. The court did not set any new precedent and confirmed that the convictions are safe and supported by overwhelming evidence. No loss of time order was made as the appeal against sentence was pursued but refused. The decision clarifies the importance of clear communication and consent in the conduct of appeals.