Marley, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was tried in the Crown Court at The City before Judge Williams and a jury and, on 13 April 2023, was convicted of two counts of kidnapping, three counts of false imprisonment and one count of blackmail arising from incidents on 11–12 December 2020. Nine defendants in total were convicted in relation to the incident as part of Operation A. On 27 October 2023 the Appellant received an extended sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 of 19 years (15 years custodial plus a 4 year extended licence). A Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO) was imposed on 14 February 2025 for five years from release. The Appellant is in custody and unrepresented. He applied for leave to appeal by submitting an Easy Read Form NG received by the Court Office on 28 August 2024, and provided additional written material in October 2024 and further letters in May and July 2025. A single judge refused leave; this is a renewed application requiring an extension of time of 271 days. Shortly before the renewed hearing the Appellant applied to attend via video link and to address the court; that application was refused.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted in respect of the extended sentence of 19 years (custody 15 years plus 4 year extended licence).
2. Whether the necessary extension of time (271 days) to seek leave to appeal should be granted.
3. Whether the Appellant's renewed written submissions disclose any arguable error in sentence (including whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in law).
4. Whether the late application to adjourn the hearing should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The 15 year custodial term is manifestly excessive.
• Mitigating factors: no history of violence; victims were uninjured; victims were known drug dealers; the Appellant suffers from ADHD and autism; the Appellant was a business owner and primary carer for a 10-year-old son with mental health problems.
• No account taken of time on remand (including during the Covid period).
• Good conduct in prison and having witnessed traumatic events while in custody.
• Additional submissions: alleged misrepresentation of earlier offending involving possession of a mobile phone in custody; claimed unfair disparity between his sentence and those of co-defendants; prior convictions should be viewed in context (juvenile status when committed).
• Submission that imposing an extended determinate sentence together with a SCPO was disproportionate (though no separate challenge to the SCPO was advanced).

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the Form NG, the Appellant's written submissions and the single judge's reasons and concluded the single judge was correct to refuse leave to appeal. The court's analysis proceeded as follows:

• The Appellant played a leading role in a sophisticated, organised group specialising in kidnap, extortion and blackmail; the sentencing judge had heard the evidence and was in the optimal position to assess culpability.
• The sentencing judge permissibly treated the Appellant as a "level 1" offender with a high starting point (citing Stephens) given his role and the nature of the offending, including arranging addresses and threats with a gun and a knife.
• Mitigating contextual factors (age at offending, family circumstances, medical conditions, caring responsibilities) were identified, fully set out in mitigation materials, and taken into account; caring responsibilities attract limited weight against serious offending.
• The Appellant's prior convictions and behaviour in custody (including a conviction for possessing a phone in prison) were relevant to the judge's assessment of dangerousness; the pre-sentence report indicated a high risk of serious harm and return to offending through gang associations.
• Disparity arguments were rejected as unarguable; the Appellant's leading role distinguished his case from co-defendants (relying on the principle in Anandarajah that disparity arguments are difficult to maintain).
• The Appellant's additional written submissions lodged after refusal by the single judge did not disclose any arguable error; the court would not, in the absence of new arguable grounds, permit oral supplementation from custody.
• On delay, there was no good reason for the significant 271-day delay and, in any event, the substantive application lacked merit, so an extension of time was refused.
• The late application to adjourn by Company A (received on the morning of the hearing) arrived after the court had delivered its decision in substance and was refused as unreasonably late and without good reason.

Holding and Implications

Both applications are refused.

Holding: The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and declined to grant the required extension of time. It also refused the late application to adjourn.

Implications: The sentence as imposed (an extended sentence totalling 19 years: 15 years custodial plus a 4 year extended licence) stands; the SCPO remains in place (no challenge to it was advanced). The court found no arguable error in sentence and declined to grant relief on delay grounds. The opinion does not purport to establish any novel legal principle or wider precedent beyond the application of established authorities cited.