Golds, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a renewed application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence following refusal by a single judge. The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at The City of 22 sexual offences against two children, referred to as C1 and C2. The offences occurred between 2002 and 2007, during which time the applicant, previously convicted of murder and serving a life sentence, was released on licence and lived with the family of the victims, effectively acting as a stepfather. The applicant was sentenced to a total of 25 years' imprisonment, with sentences relating to C1 and C2 running concurrently and consecutively as appropriate. The mother of the victims was also convicted of cruelty to a child and received a suspended sentence.

The applicant's renewed applications for extensions of time to appeal were significantly delayed. He attributed the delay to dissatisfaction with his trial counsel's representation and difficulties accessing his case materials. The court considered the applications on their merits despite the delay.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
2. Whether the applicant's conviction was safe, particularly considering the admissibility of his prior murder conviction and the adequacy of trial representation.
3. Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate, including issues of totality and credit for time spent in custody on remand.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The prior murder conviction should not have been adduced at trial, and counsel was wrong to concede its explanatory relevance.
• Counsel failed to represent the applicant properly, including inadequate pursuit of disclosure, failure to raise inconsistencies, inappropriate editing of evidence interviews, and allowing statements to be read without consent.
• The trial judge made inappropriate comments favoring the prosecution.
• A police officer witness remained in court throughout the trial, which was improper.
• Requested disclosure items were never provided.
• Issues relating to the co-accused’s charges and sentencing suggested judicial bias to avoid imprisonment of the co-accused.
• Concerns about charging decisions and indictment validity.
• Regarding sentence, the applicant argued that all sentences should have run concurrently or been reduced to reflect totality, and that credit should be given for time spent in custody on remand, especially during the Covid pandemic.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's arguments beyond the court’s summary of the prosecution’s position in relation to the admissibility of the murder conviction and the adequacy of disclosure and representation.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found the reasons for the lengthy delay insufficient to justify extensions of time but proceeded to consider the applications on their merits. It held that the prior murder conviction was highly relevant to explain the complainants' fear and delay in reporting the abuse and that the trial judge gave careful and appropriate directions to the jury to mitigate any prejudice. The court rejected all grounds relating to alleged trial irregularities and counsel’s conduct, finding that the applicant was well represented and that disclosure and evidential decisions were properly handled. The court found the convictions safe and the evidence compelling.

Regarding sentence, the court agreed with the sentencing judge’s approach to totality, including the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences reflecting the gravity and persistence of offending against two victims. The court also held that the applicant was not entitled to credit for time spent in custody on remand because he was recalled on licence and had breached licence conditions from the outset. The sentence was within the range anticipated by sentencing guidelines and was not manifestly excessive.

Consequently, even without the delay, leave to appeal would not have been granted on either conviction or sentence.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the applications for extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

The direct effect is that the applicant’s convictions and sentence remain intact. The court emphasized that the lengthy delays were unjustified and that the appeals had no arguable merit. No new precedent was established by this decision.