Milton, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 28 March 2022 the Applicant was convicted after trial of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation and conspiracy to conceal criminal property. On 25 May 2022 the Applicant was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment concurrent on each count and disqualified from acting as a company director for 5 years. The trial indictment named Co-Defendant A, Co-Defendant B, Co-Defendant C and Co-Defendant D and was amended during trial to include "others unknown".

Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant B were convicted at trial but their convictions were quashed on appeal by reference to the judgment reported as R v Al Rawe and Ellis [2023] EWCA Crim 812. Co-Defendant C and Co-Defendant D were acquitted. The retrial of Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant B is fixed for 8 September 2025 (estimate 4 weeks).

The Applicant (son of Co-Defendant B) lodged, on 21 June 2024, an application for an extension of time (785 days) in which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction. The Registrar referred the application to the Full Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should grant an extension of time for the Applicant to apply for leave to appeal, given a delay of 785 days and the reasons provided for that delay.
2. Whether, applying the test for extension of time and injustice, the Applicant's conviction has sufficient merit (including by reason of the quashing of co-defendants' convictions) to justify permission to appeal and to allow the appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant's case was inextricably linked with Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant B; any unfairness affecting Co-Defendant A's evidence directly affects the safety of the Applicant's conviction.
• The Applicant personally did not cause the delay; delay arose from mistaken early legal advice, counsel's and solicitors' work pressures, annual leave, difficulty locating the Applicant in the prison estate, and communications issues after his release.
• The prosecution never advanced a case that the Applicant acted independently of Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant B; the prosecution's case was of a closed conspiracy.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution agreed the case against the Applicant was fairly represented in the Applicant's grounds (summary: role running the office, oversight of sales staff using false names, familiarity with Account A and transfers including a £50,000 transfer to Co-Defendant B in 2015).
• It was surprising there had been no communication or awareness that Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant B had lodged timely appeals and succeeded in July 2023; a further delay of some 10 months followed the judgment.
• The only real issue was whether there was merit in the Applicant's appeal such that not granting leave would produce injustice.
• The prosecution indicated the case prosecuted was a closed conspiracy and did not point to evidence of other conspirators such that the Applicant could be found guilty regardless of the non-involvement of the named co-defendants.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined: (a) the chronology and reasons for delay after delivery of the judgment in R v Al Rawe and Ellis; (b) who was responsible for delay; and (c) whether refusal to extend time would produce injustice by reference to the merits of the substantive appeal.

The court accepted that the reasons given (mistaken early advice, counsel and solicitor delays, annual leave, difficulty locating the Applicant post-release) did not, by themselves, constitute good reason for the length of delay. The court nonetheless accepted that the Applicant was not personally responsible for the delay.

Accordingly the court proceeded to examine whether injustice would follow from refusal to allow the appeal: it considered the prosecution case as presented at trial (a closed conspiracy involving the Applicant, Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant B) and the centrality of Co-Defendant A's evidence to the Applicant's conviction. The court noted the prosecution did not identify evidence of other conspirators that could sustain the Applicant's conviction independently.

The court observed established authority that extensions of time are not automatic and should be granted where there is good reason and ordinarily where injustice would follow; applying those principles to the facts, the court found merit in the Applicant's permission to appeal and that refusal to extend time would create injustice.

The court therefore granted the extension, allowed permission to appeal, allowed the appeal and quashed the Applicant's convictions. The court directed a retrial and made ancillary directions (fresh indictment timetable, arraignment timetable, bail pending retrial, continuation of a reporting restriction made under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981).

Holding and Implications

The court granted an extension of time, granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal and quashed the Applicant's convictions on both counts.

Implications and direct effects:

• The Applicant will be retried on both counts with Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant B; the retrial is listed for 8 September 2025 (estimate 4 weeks).
• A fresh indictment must be served within 28 days of the order (Criminal Procedure Rules 10.8(2)).
• The Applicant is to be re-arraigned on that fresh indictment within two months (section 8(1) Criminal Appeal Act, as amended).
• The Applicant, presently at large and on licence until 2026, was granted bail pending retrial.
• The reporting restriction pursuant to section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 remains in place until after conclusion of the retrial.
• No broader new legal precedent was established; the court applied established principles on extensions of time and injustice to the facts of this case.