Moulden, R. v (House Of Lords Pronouncement)

A refusal of leave to appeal is a determination of an application, not a decision on an appeal under Part 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The House of Lords therefore has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from that refusal. A certificate under section 33(2) should be refused where it could serve no useful purpose. Where that jurisdictional conclusion is clear, an oral hearing is unnecessary.

On 27 October 2004 the Court of Appeal refused Leslie Moulden’s renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and for leave to appeal against a confiscation order. The reasons were given in a judgment delivered by Stanley Burnton J.

Moulden then sought a certificate that the decision involved a point of law of general public importance, and leave to appeal to the House of Lords under section 33(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The central issue was whether the earlier refusal of leave was a decision on an appeal within Part 1 of that Act.

1. The application for a certificate was refused. The Court held that the proposed appeal to the House of Lords could not lie, so a certificate would serve no useful purpose.
2. Section 33(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 permits an appeal to the House of Lords only from a decision of the Court of Appeal on an appeal under Part 1. A decision refusing leave to appeal is not such a decision.
3. That conclusion followed from the wording of sections 33(1) and 51(1), and was confirmed by R v Mealey and Sheridan [1975] Crim LR 154. The Court’s order of 27 October 2004 had simply refused leave; it had not determined an appeal.
4. As the jurisdictional position was clear, the Court saw no reason to hold an oral hearing. It noted that no application for such a hearing had, in any event, been made.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 27 October 2004, the court refused renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence and for leave to appeal against a confiscation order. In this pronouncement, [2005] EWCA Crim 374, it explained its subsequent refusal to certify a point of law for an appeal to the House of Lords.