Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant was convicted on 23 November 2023, after pleading guilty, of stalking and harassment. Two further counts were ordered to lie on the file. [1]
The offending concerned unwanted and threatening communications and monitoring directed towards Complainant 1, the Applicant’s former wife, and threatening messages directed towards Complainant 2. [2][3][4][5]
The Applicant was sentenced on 21 March 2024 to 55 months’ imprisonment for stalking, with a concurrent term of 12 weeks for harassment. His separate appeal against sentence was refused. [6][7]
On 14 January 2025, the Applicant applied out of time for leave to appeal against conviction. The application was 390 days late, was refused on the papers by a single judge, and was renewed before the Court of Appeal. He also sought an extension of time and permission to introduce fresh evidence. [8][9][10]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Applicant should be granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction. [11][12][13]
- Whether there was any arguable basis for appealing convictions entered following guilty pleas. [14][15][16][17]
- Whether statements from the Applicant’s mother and aunt should be admitted as fresh evidence. [18][19]
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Arguments
- The Applicant attributed the delay to advice that an appeal had no prospects because he had pleaded guilty, together with shock, confusion, depression, and difficulty processing events. [11]
- He alleged that his former lawyers had provided inadequate advice, pressured him into pleading guilty, ignored his instructions, and failed to pursue a Newton hearing. [14][20][21][22][23]
- He challenged aspects of the stalking and harassment allegations by referring to their connection with divorce proceedings and questioning the complainants’ credibility. [24][25]
- He sought to rely on statements from his mother and aunt as fresh evidence. [18]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court did not accept that the Applicant had provided a good explanation for the lengthy delay. Nevertheless, it considered the merits because those merits were relevant to whether an extension should be granted. [12][13]
The Court concluded that the proposed fresh evidence could not satisfy section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. There was no reasonable explanation for failing to call the witnesses below, and the evidence would not provide a basis for allowing the appeal or address whether the Applicant understood his guilty pleas. [18][19]
The Court recognised that a guilty plea is not an absolute bar to an appeal, because the ultimate question is whether the conviction is safe, but held that it presents a significant obstacle. [14]
Having reviewed the legal representatives’ responses, contemporaneous attendance notes, prosecution material, hearing records, and the Crown Court digital case system, the Court found no evidence that the Applicant was unfit to plead or that he had been coerced. The records showed that he received legal advice, understood the risks of a basis of plea, and chose to plead guilty without a basis. [15][16][26]
The Court found no merit in the complaints about the Applicant’s former lawyers. The contemporaneous records supported the lawyers’ account, showed that realistic advice had been given, and did not support the Applicant’s later allegations of pressure or inadequate preparation. [27][28][29][30]
The individual grounds were rejected because some concerned counts for which there was no conviction, others were irrelevant to the conviction appeal, and the remaining grounds were unsupported by the contemporaneous evidence. The Court also held that pursuing evidence for divorce proceedings would not have constituted a defence to the criminal charges. [20][31][24][25][32][21][23][33][34]
After considering the grounds collectively, the Court concluded that there was no arguable point warranting leave. Since the proposed appeal lacked merit, granting an extension of time would serve no useful purpose. [35][36][37]
Holding and Implications
THE APPLICATIONS WERE REFUSED AND THE MATTER WAS CERTIFIED AS TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT. No further order, including a costs order, was made. [38][39]
The Applicant therefore obtained neither an extension of time nor leave to appeal against conviction, and his application to adduce fresh evidence was unsuccessful. No broader implication or new precedent was identified in the opinion. [18][37][39]