Fretwell, R v

A renewed application to appeal a guilty-plea conviction will fail where the applicant provides no credible basis for saying that the plea rendered the conviction unsafe. An allegation of defective legal advice carries little weight where privilege is not waived to permit investigation of the allegation.

An extended sentence for a dangerous offender may be justified by the seriousness and circumstances of the current offence, together with reliable medical and pre-sentence evidence of risk. A limited criminal record does not, on the facts of this case, undermine the finding of dangerousness.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Manchester to robbery. He received an extended sentence comprising four years’ custody and a two-year extended licence period.

After a single judge refused leave, he renewed applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and applied for bail. He alleged that his solicitors had told him that he could only plead guilty, but declined to waive privilege. He also contended that he had acted in self-defence and that he was not dangerous because of his limited previous offending.

The court considered whether either proposed appeal had merit and whether an extension of time should be granted.

1. The court refused the renewed applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. It also refused bail.

2. The proposed conviction appeal was wholly without merit. The allegation that the applicant had been told that he could only plead guilty was inherently implausible. His refusal to waive privilege prevented examination of the solicitors’ file, attendance notes and recollections. There was therefore no prospect of establishing that the guilty plea made the conviction unsafe. The asserted self-defence was unsustainable and contradicted the account recorded in the pre-sentence report.

3. The proposed sentence appeal was also wholly without merit. The circumstances of the robbery, the applicant’s mental-health history, cannabis use, medical information and the pre-sentence assessment provided ample basis for the conclusion that he was dangerous under the dangerous-offender provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The judge was entitled to regard a custodial extended sentence as appropriate rather than pursue a hospital order with restrictions. A custodial term of four years with a two-year extended licence period was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

4. The renewal was made despite the single judge’s warning that it was hopeless. The court directed that 14 days spent in custody pending determination of the applications should not count towards the custodial term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the renewed applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and refused bail.
• Crown Court at Manchester: On 15 July 2015, following a guilty plea to robbery, imposed an extended sentence of four years’ custody and a two-year extended licence period.