Hopkinson, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a renewed application by the Appellant for an extension of time (448 days) to apply for leave to appeal against conviction, an application to adduce fresh evidence following refusal by a single judge, and an application for bail in the event leave to appeal is granted. On 13 February 2023 at The Crown Court the Appellant pleaded guilty on the first day of trial to arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On 18 April 2023 Judge Lowe sentenced the Appellant to seven years and two months' imprisonment for that offence; earlier guilty pleas to two drugs offences had resulted in concurrent determinate sentences of nine months each.

The factual background, as summarised in the opinion, is that between 27 June 2022 and 17 August 2022 the Appellant communicated on a social media platform with an individual identifying as an adult, "Person A", who claimed to live in The City with a 10‑year‑old "Child A". Conversations moved to another messaging platform and over about seven weeks concerned the child and alleged sexual scenarios. The Appellant expressed sexual interest in young girls, arranged to travel to The City to meet, and made messages indicating intent to have sex with the child and to drug the child. When he attended The Station in The City to meet Person A on the arranged date police officers were waiting and arrested him. At arrest he was found with a small quantity of cannabis, cannabis oil and Viagra. He declined to answer questions in interview about the sexual offending. The Appellant was advised by his former legal representatives that he had no grounds to appeal sentence; the question of appealing conviction did not arise initially because he pleaded guilty.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an extension of time should be granted for the Appellant to apply for leave to appeal against conviction (an application 448 days out of time).
2. Whether the Appellant should be permitted to adduce fresh evidence said to be legally privileged communications and related material in support of an appeal against conviction.
3. Whether the Appellant's conviction is unsafe in light of alleged non‑disclosure of material, alleged bad legal advice, and factual assertions that the communications were fantasy or that he intended to meet an adult rather than a child.
4. Whether bail should be granted in the event leave to appeal is granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• There was undisclosed prosecution material in the unused material that would have supported a defence that he had arranged to meet an adult (Person A) and not Child A.
• He had said during chats that meeting the child was a fantasy and not intended to be carried out.
• He was wrongly advised to give a no‑comment interview and was wrongly advised to plead guilty; trial counsel was not fully aware of all parts of the evidence.
• The police edited chat logs omitting references that the discussions about Child A were fantasy; his arrest was unlawful because police inaccurately stated he had been chatting directly with a 10‑year‑old.
• Fresh evidence (privileged communications between his mother and solicitors) would show concerns about non‑disclosure and support his position.

Prosecution's Position

• The Prosecution (CPS) considered it had disclosed all prosecution material which might reasonably be expected to assist the defence and invited the defence to raise any further disclosure issues or apply to the court under section 8 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
• The Prosecution's unused material and the crime report recorded that the Appellant had communicated with an adult and arranged to meet to commit sexual offences including rape against a 10‑year‑old, consistent with the interview record.

Defence Counsel's Response

• Defense Counsel provided a detailed response to the Appellant's criticisms, demonstrating awareness of the Appellant's proposed "fantasy" defence and that the defence had reviewed the chat logs and other material.
• Counsel advised the Appellant at a lengthy conference on the day of trial that the prosecution case was strong, highlighted evidence such as setting up and deleting accounts and presence at The Station with incriminating items, explained that fantasy was a defence to be run at trial, discussed plea credit and mitigation, and confirmed the plea decision was the Appellant's.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed whether any arguable grounds rendered the conviction unsafe. It proceeded step‑by‑step as follows:

• Fitness and plea: The Appellant was fit to plead, knew what he was doing, received legal advice, and intended to plead guilty; a guilty plea is an obstacle but not a bar to appeal.
• Disclosure and defence: The Appellant alleged non‑disclosure that would have supported a "fantasy" defence. The Prosecution notified defence solicitors that all relevant material had been disclosed; the schedule of unused material and crime report aligned with the interview record explaining the basis for arrest and charge.
• Adequacy of legal advice: The defence team waived privilege by the Appellant's criticisms; defence counsel provided a detailed response showing they knew the proposed defence, had reviewed the evidence (including extensive chat logs), and had advised the Appellant to proceed to trial if he genuinely maintained the fantasy defence. The court found counsel's advice to have been proper.
• Effect of no‑comment interview: The Appellant knew the reason for arrest and the consequences of silence; the court concluded that his choice to say "no comment" in interview made no material difference to conviction prospects and would not have made the decisive difference between pleading guilty and going to trial.
• Assessment of fresh evidence: The privileged communications sought to be relied on did not afford any arguable basis to impugn the conviction; on the contrary they demonstrated the defence team had considered disclosure and the proposed defence.
• Strength of prosecution case: The court considered the messages (including 817 pages of chat logs), the Appellant's conduct in creating/deleting accounts, his travel to The City, and possession of cannabis and Viagra, concluding the prosecution case was overwhelming and that it was fanciful to suppose a jury would accept the Appellant was not serious about meeting Child A.
• Delay: The court agreed with the single judge that the delay in bringing the applications was insufficiently justified; shock and impact of arrest, remand, conviction and sentence did not excuse the delay.
• Merit and resource use: The applications were found totally without merit and a significant amount of judicial time had been expended reading voluminous material and correspondence from the Appellant.

Holding and Implications

The renewed applications are dismissed.

Direct consequences recorded by the court:

• The court dismissed the Appellant's renewed application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction and the application to adduce fresh evidence; the bail application was not granted as no leave was available.
• The court directed that 56 days will not count towards the Appellant's sentence as a loss of time order, reflecting the use of powers to discourage unmeritorious applications.

The opinion notes that no new precedent was established beyond applying existing principles to refuse the renewed applications and impose the loss of time directed.