Graham, R. v

On a Registrar’s reference under section 20 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, an application for leave to appeal may be summarily dismissed where its grounds disclose no arguable basis for challenge. The court may reach that conclusion where the grounds are general and unparticularised, do not engage with the ruling challenged, and are disavowed by the solicitors said to have instituted the application.

Separate concerns that a person may have purported to act for a firm of solicitors do not prevent summary disposal of an unarguable application. They may properly be referred to the relevant professional regulator.

The applicant had pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Inner London to conspiracy to supply Class A controlled drugs. A later confiscation hearing before a different judge resulted in a confiscation order.

An application for leave to appeal was lodged in the name of Henry’s Solicitors. It contained general grounds which did not address the detailed ruling made at the confiscation hearing. At an earlier hearing, the person appearing in connection with the application could not address its merits or the absence of arguable grounds. The court adjourned for the solicitor responsible for the case to attend.

On the resumed hearing, the firm’s director and counsel stated that the firm disavowed the notice of appeal and that the person who had signed it had no authority to institute proceedings for the firm. The court considered a Registrar’s reference under section 20 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and the appropriate response to the apparent misuse of the firm’s name and facilities.

The application for leave to appeal was summarily dismissed.

1. The court considered the Registrar’s reference pursuant to section 20 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Its task was to determine whether the application should be dismissed summarily as frivolous or vexatious and whether the grounds had been properly formulated.

2. The purported application contained only general and unparticularised grounds. It did not engage with either the confiscation ruling or the comprehensive submissions made at the hearing. The solicitors in whose name it had been filed entirely disavowed it. Counsel accepted that it disclosed no arguable ground of appeal. The court independently reached the same conclusion and summarily dismissed the application.

3. The circumstances raised serious concerns that someone had represented himself as acting for a solicitors’ firm and had used its stationery, communications facilities, or both. The court did not determine those compliance and governance issues. It referred the papers to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a Registrar’s reference, the court summarily dismissed the application for leave to appeal: [2014] EWCA Crim 1594.
• Crown Court at Inner London: The applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply Class A controlled drugs. A subsequent confiscation hearing resulted in the order which he purported to challenge.