Yates, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty on 11 September 2023 in the Crown Court in The City to stalking causing serious alarm or distress contrary to section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, involving a complainant who was 15 at the time of the offending and is now an adult. Sentencing took place on 27 October 2023, when the Appellant received 25 months' imprisonment. The Appellant lodged grounds of appeal against conviction 203 days out of time. A Single Judge, Judge [Last Name], refused extensions of time and leave to appeal. The Appellant seeks to renew those applications before the full court; the renewal itself is 48 days out of time, requiring a 48‑day extension to renew and a 203‑day extension for the substantive appeal and leave application. The Crown Court made reporting restrictions while the complainant was under 18; the complainant is now over 18.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether to grant a 48‑day extension of time to renew the Appellant's earlier applications to extend time and for leave to appeal.
2. Whether to grant a 203‑day extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction.
3. Whether the Appellant's pleaded grounds render his conviction unsafe.
4. Whether existing reporting restrictions should continue now that the complainant is over 18.

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecution's Case

• The Appellant met the complainant through assisting her mother from 2020, developed a relationship with the family, and was on bail from November 2022 with a requirement to keep away from the complainant and her address.
• The prosecution alleged a campaign of stalking: parking a car with a dashboard camera aimed at the complainant's house, following the complainant on TikTok using multiple accounts, posting videos including threatening content and images of the complainant, and obtaining dashcam and doorbell footage of the complainant.
• Police seized a handwritten note and electronic downloads from the Appellant's phone including dashcam footage and doorbell footage; an interview yielded admissions that the Appellant created videos and used a transcriber for audio.
• Evidence exhibited included statements from the complainant's mother (photographs of the car/dashcam), police vehicle‑registration records and a V5, mobile extraction reports showing images of the address and dashcam video, and doorbell footage recovered from the Appellant's laptop shortly after bail was imposed.

Appellant's Arguments

• Ground 1: Allegation that the prosecution lied about an electronic alteration of the voice in a video.
• Ground 2: Claim that he can disprove the prosecution's assertion that he watched video material remotely.
• Ground 3: Allegation that the prosecution lied about an informant named "Jodie Foster" and that no evidence proved this.
• Ground 4: Allegation that police submitted false dashcam stills; reliance on evidence from Witness C who bought his car.
• Ground 5: Complaint that counsel failed to withdraw the guilty plea as instructed, was misadvised about sentence, and that counsel failed to lodge an appeal.
• Ground 6 (framed as conviction ground): Complaints about the pre‑sentence report and assertions by the probation officer.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the Single Judge's detailed analysis and adopted it. The Single Judge had found the following: the Appellant entered an unequivocal guilty plea on a full‑facts basis after receiving full advice and with opportunities to withdraw the plea; statements from defence representatives confirmed appropriate advice was given; the Appellant declined to vacate his plea when given opportunity; and the evidence served by the prosecution was substantial and coherent.

On Ground 1 the court noted the Appellant admitted creating videos and described use of a transcriber to generate audio; whether the voice was altered did not affect the safety of conviction because the Appellant admitted creating the videos and they were objectively disturbing and directed at the complainant.

On Ground 3 the court observed no witness called "Jodie Foster" was involved; there was a witness (identified in the record as Jodie Openshaw) who provided statements and complained to police, and that evidence had been served.

On Grounds 2 and 4 the court recited the documentary and electronic evidence served: photographic exhibits of the car and dashcam, vehicle registration and V5 seized from the car, mobile extraction showing images of the complainant's address and dashcam video (with an officer recognising the Appellant's voice), and doorbell footage recovered from the Appellant's laptop shortly after bail conditions were imposed. The court found the Appellant offered no coherent explanation undermining that evidence; the proposed fresh evidence from Witness C did not assert exclusive use of the vehicle by anyone else and did not render the conviction unsafe.

On Ground 6 the court explained the pre‑sentence report was prepared after the guilty plea and that conclusions about sexual intent were within the probation officer's remit; text messages extracted from the Appellant's phone provided evidence of sexual intent and an obsessive fixation, supporting the motive for stalking.

Having reviewed all material, the court concluded the conviction was not arguably unsafe, the plea was unequivocal and properly advised, the challenges to the evidence did not undermine the strong case, and complaints about the probation report related to sentence rather than conviction.

Separately, the Registrar identified that the Crown Court's reporting restriction order was internally inconsistent as to duration. The court explained the statutory scope of section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (power to restrict publication while a person is under 18) and concluded the restriction could not be indefinite; since the complainant is now over 18, the court exercised its power under section 45(3) to dispense with the reporting restrictions.

Holding and Implications

The application for a 48‑day extension to renew was refused, and the subsequent application for a 203‑day extension and for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

Consequences: The Appellant's renewal and time‑extensions for appeal and leave to appeal were denied, leaving the conviction and sentence intact. The court also dispensed with the reporting restrictions imposed while the complainant was under 18, pursuant to section 45(3) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, because the complainant is now an adult. The opinion does not purport to establish any new legal precedent.