Angus-Barton, R. v

An extension of time to renew an application for leave to appeal against conviction may properly be refused where the proposed grounds lack merit. Fresh psychiatric evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 may be refused where it could reasonably have been obtained for trial and advances an issue inconsistent with the defence then run.

Alleged failures by representatives will not undermine a conviction where the defendant did not engage with reasonable requests for instructions, the jury received an adequate good-character direction, and the trial judge fairly accommodated the evidence relied upon. A conviction based on CCTV evidence remains safe where the jury could properly conclude from it that the defendant committed the offence.

The applicant was convicted of theft at Maidstone Crown Court on 21 June 2017. The prosecution relied principally on CCTV footage showing events at a shop till after the complainant had left her purse there.

The applicant denied taking the purse. She gave evidence about injuries, medication and their effects. The trial judge directed the jury on intention and good character.

Following the single judge's refusal of her earlier application, the applicant sought a further extension of time, permission to call a witness, and leave to appeal against conviction. She alleged that her solicitors acted without instructions, failed to call character evidence, and failed to obtain medical expert evidence. She also applied to adduce a later psychiatric report under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

1. The applications were refused. The court refused the further extension of time because the merits did not justify it. There were no grounds on which to grant any of the applications.

2. The allegation that the solicitors acted without instructions was devoid of merit. The applicant had given instructions to counsel at an earlier hearing. Her solicitors repeatedly and reasonably sought a meeting to discuss the evidence and defence, including by offering to attend her home. Any absence of further instructions resulted from the applicant's, and possibly her husband's, failure to engage with those requests.

3. The absence of character witnesses did not undermine the safety of the conviction. The jury had evidence of the applicant's personal and professional good character, as well as her lack of previous convictions. The judge gave a full good-character direction and said all that could reasonably be said on that issue.

4. The court refused the application under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to adduce psychiatric evidence. The report could reasonably have been obtained before trial. Further, it addressed an asserted inability to form an intention to steal, whereas the defence at trial was that the applicant had not taken the purse at all. It would therefore provide no ground for allowing the appeal.

5. The CCTV evidence was properly available for the jury's assessment. The judge had enabled the applicant and counsel to consider it fully, and had permitted evidence about medication and its effects. The jury could properly conclude from the footage that the applicant moved and took the purse. The conviction was not rendered unsafe by the grounds advanced.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the applications for extensions of time, for leave to adduce psychiatric evidence, and for leave to appeal against conviction in [2019] EWCA Crim 1593.
• Crown Court at Maidstone: On 21 June 2017, convicted the applicant of theft and imposed a 12-month conditional discharge, compensation of £250 and a victim surcharge.