Rovillo, R. v

A renewed and substantially out-of-time application for leave to appeal against conviction will be refused where the further grounds and material disclose no arguable basis for either an extension of time or leave. An alleged conflict of interest and an alleged mistranslation did not render the conviction arguably unsafe where the defendants had given the same account, had separate advocates, and the applicant had made admissions demonstrating his state of knowledge.

R v Giambattista Rovillo concerned a renewed application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction.

The applicant had pleaded guilty at Canterbury Crown Court to fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importing cocaine, contrary to section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. A previous appeal against sentence was allowed and the sentence reduced to 10 years.

More than a year after conviction, he sought leave to appeal on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest with his co-accused, who had been represented by the same solicitors, and an alleged mistranslation of “knowingly concerned”. The central issue was whether those matters provided an arguable basis for extending time and granting leave to appeal.

1. The renewed application was refused. The further grounds and material disclosed no arguable basis for an extension of time or for leave to appeal against conviction.

2. Soole J, delivering the judgment approved by the court, treated the alleged conflict of interest as unarguable. The applicant and his co-accused had given the same account. Although they had instructed the same solicitors’ firm, they had separate advocates at the relevant hearings. They were also assisted by an Italian interpreter during consultations and interviews.

3. The alleged mistranslation did not provide a basis for reopening the conviction. The court repeated the single judge’s observations in the co-accused’s application. In particular, both defendants had conceded in interview that they thought the packages might contain drugs. The court also relied on the account of their state of knowledge in the earlier sentence appeal, when they were represented by an Italian-speaking lawyer.

4. The applications were without merit and were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on 5 June 2014, the applicant’s appeal against sentence was allowed and his sentence was reduced from 12 to 10 years’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Canterbury: the applicant pleaded guilty on 7 February 2014 and was sentenced on 6 March 2014.