Hudson, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 21 December 2005, the Plaintiff was convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice and sentenced to four years' imprisonment, with time on remand taken into consideration. He was acquitted of murder at the direction of the trial judge. The pathologist who examined the deceased and gave evidence at trial was Professor A.

On 15 June 2022, the Plaintiff was convicted of stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress, with the complainant being Professor A. The Plaintiff was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.

On 20 September 2022, the Plaintiff was sentenced in the Crown Court to an extended determinate sentence of nine years, comprising four years' imprisonment and a five-year extended licence. The Plaintiff filed applications for leave to appeal against this sentence and, separately, against the 2005 conviction, including an application for an extension of time to file the latter appeal.

The Registrar sought clarification of the grounds of appeal against conviction and provided guidance on improving them. The single judge refused leave to appeal the stalking sentence, but the Plaintiff renewed this application. Both the renewed application for leave to appeal sentence and the applications regarding the 2005 conviction were referred to the Full Court for determination and were to be heard on the same day by the same constitution, a decision the Plaintiff contested.

The Plaintiff made multiple telephone calls expressing dissatisfaction with the joint hearing of the applications and requested a notice of abandonment form (Form A). He was advised that abandonment would be final and could not be temporary. Despite this, the Plaintiff submitted a signed Form A abandoning all proceedings related to his conviction applications.

The Senior Legal Manager confirmed the abandonment appeared unequivocal. Subsequently, the Plaintiff’s renewed application for leave to appeal sentence was refused. The Plaintiff then applied to have the abandonment treated as a nullity, alleging pressure not to appeal, "sinister behaviour" by the court and prosecution, and that he was suffering from PTSD at the time, impairing his understanding and decision-making.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff’s notice of abandonment of his appeal against conviction can be set aside as a nullity on the basis that the abandonment was not a deliberate and informed decision.
2. Whether the Plaintiff’s mental state, including alleged PTSD, or perceived pressure and intimidation, negates the validity of the abandonment.
3. The legal effect and finality of a notice of abandonment under the Criminal Procedure Rules and relevant case law.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contended that he abandoned his appeal against conviction because he was under pressure not to appeal and due to "sinister behaviour" by the court and the Crown Prosecution Service.
• He argued that he felt bullied and that he had no choice but to abandon the appeal to avoid being "punished" in another concurrent appeal regarding sentence.
• The Plaintiff asserted that at the time of abandonment he was suffering from PTSD, which impaired his ability to think clearly and understand the consequences of his actions.
• He sought to have the notice of abandonment treated as a nullity, effectively setting it aside.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court emphasized that the merits of the underlying conviction appeal were irrelevant to the application to set aside the notice of abandonment. The legal principles, as established in R v Medway and R v Smith, require that the abandonment be a deliberate and informed act for it to be valid. The Court examined whether the Plaintiff’s mind went with the act of abandonment, considering his claims of pressure, intimidation, and mental incapacity.

The Court found no evidence of incorrect legal advice, which is a recognized ground for setting aside abandonment. The Plaintiff had been treated courteously and given clear information about the consequences of abandonment, including repeated advice that abandonment would be final and not temporary.

The Plaintiff’s contention that he was bullied or would be punished in another appeal was rejected as unsupported by the record. The Court found that the Plaintiff’s decision to abandon was a conscious and deliberate attempt to manipulate the listing of his appeals, rather than a product of impaired understanding or coercion.

The Court noted that the Plaintiff completed Form A in accordance with instructions, signed it in black ink and capitals, and that there was no indication that his mind did not accompany his signature. There was no credible evidence that the Plaintiff was suffering severely from PTSD or otherwise unable to understand the consequences at the relevant time.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the notice of abandonment was valid and not a nullity, and thus refused to set it aside.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the Plaintiff’s application to treat the notice of abandonment as a nullity and to set it aside.

This decision confirms the finality of notices of abandonment under the Criminal Procedure Rules absent clear evidence that the abandonment was not a deliberate and informed act. The ruling underscores that perceived pressure or mental health claims must be substantiated by evidence to overcome the presumption of validity. No new precedent was established; the Court applied established principles to the facts at hand, resulting in the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s application and maintaining the finality of the abandonment of his conviction appeal.