Grimes, R. v

An extension of time to renew an application for leave to appeal sentence may properly be refused where there has been substantial delay and the proposed appeal has no merit. Ill-health may be relevant to delay but does not compel an extension.

In assessing whether a fine and prosecution costs are excessive for failure to comply with a listed-building conservation-area enforcement notice, the court may take account of the prolonged planning and enforcement history. A sentence that reflects persistent non-compliance will not be disturbed merely because the offender challenges its level.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a conservation-area enforcement notice concerning property in Liverpool. He was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court on 7 September 2004 and, on 8 October 2004, was fined £2,000, with 28 days’ imprisonment in default, and ordered to pay £3,000 prosecution costs.

He sought an extension of time to renew applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal sentence after the Single Judge’s refusal. He attributed the delay to depression and severe arthritic back pain. The conviction appeal had not been renewed and had lapsed. The central issues were whether time should be extended and whether the fine and costs were excessive.

1. The applications were refused. The court agreed with the Single Judge that there had been very considerable delay in pursuing the matter. Although the applicant’s ill-health was taken into account, the proposed appeal lacked merit.

2. The fine of £2,000 and the order for £3,000 prosecution costs were entirely appropriate. The court considered the extensive planning history, including the applicant’s continued use of unapproved windows and roof tiles, the construction of unapproved balconies, the refusal and dismissal of his application to vary planning conditions, and his continued failure to comply with the enforcement notice.

3. The applicant had not appealed the enforcement notice or the conditions imposed on the relevant planning permission. The court therefore found no arguable basis for interfering with sentence or costs.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the applications to extend time and to renew the application for leave to appeal sentence.

• Single Judge: refused leave to appeal sentence and an extension of time. The applicant’s conviction appeal was not renewed and lapsed.

• Liverpool Crown Court: convicted the applicant on 7 September 2004 and sentenced him on 8 October 2004.