McGrath, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 23 January 2019, at the Crown Court sitting in The City before Judge Mensah, the Applicant was convicted unanimously on retrial of multiple offences including fraud and perverting the course of public justice (counts 1 and 2) and three further counts of fraud (counts 6 to 8). The following day, he was sentenced to a total of 8 years' imprisonment, with sentences on counts running consecutively. The Applicant's co-accused, his wife, was acquitted on counts 3 to 8.

The offences involved false claims of burglary, submission of fraudulent employment and earnings references to a bank to obtain mortgages, and providing false tax returns to secure mortgage advances. The Applicant reported a burglary that did not occur and submitted false information to support insurance and mortgage claims.

Following conviction, the Applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction. Initially refused by a single judge in April 2021, the Applicant now renews his application, seeking an extension of approximately six years to rely on new grounds of appeal. The procedural history includes multiple changes in legal representation, numerous submissions of extensive grounds of appeal by the Applicant, and repeated adjournments due to the Applicant’s failure to comply with court directions and issues regarding his mental health and fitness to instruct.

The case has been subject to a complex procedural chronology, including multiple applications for extensions of time, submissions of fresh evidence, disputes over legal representation, and administrative errors affecting the hearing schedule. The Applicant has submitted numerous iterations of grounds of appeal, often late and without compliance with court orders, leading to repeated adjournments and delays.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant should be granted an extension of time to pursue his renewed appeal grounds approximately six years out of time.
2. Whether the fresh evidence proposed by the Applicant satisfies the statutory test for admission on appeal.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit bad character evidence of a prosecution witness.
4. Whether the judge erred in failing to give a cross-admissibility direction to the jury.
5. Whether various grounds of appeal relating to alleged misrepresentations, fresh evidence, and procedural irregularities undermine the safety of the Applicant’s convictions.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contends that fresh evidence, including witness statements concerning the existence of one or two fireplaces and financial transactions, should be admitted, potentially undermining the safety of his convictions on counts 1 and 2.
• He alleges misrepresentation and irregularities in the trial process, including failure to admit bad character evidence of a prosecution witness and failure to give appropriate jury directions.
• The Applicant asserts errors in the joinder of counts, trial judge bias, defective summing-up, and misrepresentation of mortgage-related counts.
• He challenges the authenticity of employment and earnings references, tax returns, and mortgage documents submitted at trial.
• The Applicant claims difficulties in obtaining legal representation and cites mental health issues impacting his ability to comply with court directions.

Crown's Arguments

• The Crown argues that the Applicant’s renewed grounds are out of time and no proper application for extension of time has been made for new grounds.
• The proposed fresh evidence is inadmissible, largely hearsay or opinion, and does not meet the statutory criteria for admission as it could have been adduced at trial.
• The Crown submits that the trial judge correctly refused to admit bad character evidence and properly directed the jury on separate consideration of counts without a cross-admissibility direction, as no such reliance was made by the prosecution.
• The Crown maintains that the evidence at trial was strong and the Applicant’s version of events was rejected by the jury, including on matters relating to the fireplace and financial transactions.
• The Crown notes the Applicant’s failure to comply with court directions, multiple changes in legal representation, and lack of reasonable explanation for delays.
• The Crown opposes the extension of time application and requests costs limited to disbursements occasioned by responding to the Applicant’s repeated and unmeritorious grounds.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Hughes [2009] EWCA Crim 841	Extension of time granted only for good reason and where failure to do so would cause significant injustice.	The court applied this principle to require good reason for the Applicant’s six-year delay in seeking leave to appeal.
R v Thorsby [2015] EWCA Crim 1	Extension of time granted if in the interests of justice; public interest includes justice and liberty of the individual.	The court considered the interests of justice in deciding whether to extend time and review the merits of the grounds.
R v N and LE (Vinh Cong) [2013] QB 379	Defendant has one opportunity to give instructions; fresh instructions on appeal only allowed in exceptional cases.	The court rejected the Applicant’s attempt to advance fresh instructions years after trial.
R v Wilson [2016] EWCA Crim 65	Applications for extension of time must explain the delay; merits alone are insufficient.	The court emphasized the need for explanation of delay beyond merits of appeal grounds.
R v James [2018] EWCA Crim 285	Rules for varying grounds of appeal after consideration by single judge; high hurdle for fresh grounds.	The court applied principles relating to delay, reason for delay, and interests of justice in refusing to vary grounds.
R v AHC [2022] EWCA Crim 925	No automatic requirement for cross-admissibility direction unless prosecution relies on it.	The court held no error in absence of cross-admissibility direction as prosecution did not rely on it.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the Applicant’s extensive procedural history and the multiple grounds of appeal, including those newly submitted in January 2025. It applied established principles governing extensions of time, emphasizing the need for good reasons beyond mere merits and requiring an explanation for delay. The court found the Applicant’s delay of nearly six years excessive and unjustified.

Regarding fresh evidence, the court applied the statutory test considering whether the evidence was credible, whether it could afford grounds for allowing the appeal, whether it would have been admissible at trial, and whether there was a reasonable explanation for its non-admission at trial. The court found much of the proposed evidence hearsay, speculative, or opinion-based, and that it related to issues fully litigated at trial, such as the existence of one or two fireplaces. The court concluded that the fresh evidence did not cast doubt on the safety of the convictions.

The court accepted the Crown’s submissions that the trial judge properly refused to admit bad character evidence of a prosecution witness and correctly directed the jury on separate consideration of counts without a cross-admissibility direction, given the prosecution’s approach. It rejected the Applicant’s assertions of trial irregularity, bias, and misrepresentation of mortgage evidence, finding no arguable grounds undermining the convictions.

The court also addressed the Applicant’s failure to comply with court directions, late submissions, multiple changes in legal representation, and the absence of necessary procedural steps such as serving skeleton arguments and applications for extension of time. These failures contributed significantly to the delays and impeded the orderly progression of the appeal.

Balancing all factors, including the Applicant’s mental health issues and some procedural difficulties beyond his control, the court held that the Applicant bore responsibility for the extreme delays and that no reasonable or sensible excuse justified the protracted procedural history.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED THE EXTENSION OF TIME sought by the Applicant and DISMISSED THE RENEWED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant’s convictions and sentences remain undisturbed. The court found no arguable grounds to undermine the safety of the convictions and no justification for the extensive delay in pursuing the appeal. No new precedent was established; the decision reinforces established principles concerning extensions of time, admission of fresh evidence, and procedural compliance in criminal appeals.