Dillion, R v

A renewed application for leave to appeal sentence will fail where there is no arguable basis for contending that the sentence was excessive or manifestly excessive. The seriousness of a threat to kill a police officer acting in the course of duty, aggravated by relevant previous convictions and without substantial mitigation, may justify an immediate custodial sentence.

Where a renewed application is hopeless, has been pursued despite an express warning, and has caused delay to more deserving appeals, the court may direct that a specified period spent in custody shall not count towards the sentence.

The applicant was convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court of breaching a restraining order and making a threat to kill a police officer. The offences followed his entry into a prohibited shop and his arrest. At the police station, he threatened the arresting officer and referred to personal details concerning the officer and his daughter.

He was sentenced in his absence to concurrent terms of one month and two years’ imprisonment. His belated applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal sentence were refused by a single judge. He renewed those applications before the Full Court and also sought, without a proper application or grounds, to challenge his convictions.

1. The court refused the renewed applications. There was no proper application or arguable ground for an appeal against conviction. The complaint that the trial judge had failed to give a Turnbull direction was misconceived.

2. There was no arguable basis for an appeal against sentence. The threat to kill was made to a police officer acting in the execution of his duty. It was particularly grave because the applicant referred to the officer’s daughter, her school, the officer’s route, and other personal information. The officer therefore had reason to fear for his own safety and that of his family.

3. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the applicant’s previous convictions as aggravating. They included assaults on police officers and recent offending involving dangerous driving at a police officer. There was no material mitigation, apart from allowance for the applicant’s evidently confused thinking. The total sentence of two years’ imprisonment was neither excessive nor manifestly excessive, and suspension was not appropriate.

4. The court had warned the applicant that renewal could result in a loss of time order. His hopeless application and repeated correspondence had consumed judicial and administrative resources and delayed more deserving appeals. Making allowance for his confused thinking, the court nevertheless directed that 28 days already spent in custody should not count towards the two-year sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused the renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal sentence, and made a 28-day loss of time order: [2017] EWCA Crim 1293.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton — convicted the applicant on 15 December 2016 of breach of a restraining order and making a threat to kill. On 11 January 2017, imposed concurrent sentences of one month and two years’ imprisonment.