Squires, R. v

A delay in serving a trial schedule will not render a conviction unsafe where the underlying material was already available to the defence and the delay caused no prejudice. A mandatory minimum sentence under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 applies unless circumstances relating to the offences or offender make its imposition unjust. A renewed application for leave to appeal which is without merit and pursued despite a clear warning may justify a loss of time order under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, particularly where it needlessly diverts court resources from meritorious cases.

The applicant was convicted at Exeter Crown Court of possessing diamorphine and amphetamine with intent to supply. He received concurrent sentences of seven and four years’ imprisonment.

A single judge refused his applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and for a representation order. He renewed those applications before the full court. His grounds concerned late service of a schedule of text messages, the absence of two proposed defence witnesses, and the length of sentence. The court also considered whether a loss of time order should be made.

1. The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused. The short delay in serving the prosecution’s schedule of text messages was regrettable but immaterial. The messages themselves had already been exhibited, and the schedule merely presented them more conveniently. There was therefore no prejudice to the defence.
2. The proposed defence-witness evidence did not provide an arguable ground of appeal. No indication was given of helpful evidence that the deceased witness could have supplied. The other witness could only have corroborated minor aspects of the applicant’s account. Even if believed, that evidence could not have affected the verdicts. The convictions were safe: the applicant had been fairly tried on admissible evidence which was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts.
3. The sentence ground was unarguable. The applicant’s earlier convictions for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply engaged section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. That provision required a minimum seven-year sentence unless circumstances relating to the offences or offender made such a sentence unjust. Neither the sentencing judge nor this court could identify qualifying circumstances.
4. The court exercised its power under section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The applicant had pursued meritless grounds after an express warning that a loss of time order could be made. Following the guidance recalled from R v Fortean (2008/01796/B2), the court directed that 42 days already served should not count towards the sentence.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2009] EWCA Crim 398, the full court refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence and made a 42-day loss of time order.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), single judge: The single judge refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence and refused a representation order.
3. Crown Court at Exeter: On 3 April 2008, the applicant was convicted of possession with intent to supply Class A and Class B controlled drugs and was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven and four years’ imprisonment.