Churchill, R. v

An applicant seeking an extension of time to appeal must comply with the applicable time limits or provide good reasons for non-compliance. The longer the delay, the more compelling those reasons must be.

Leave to appeal a conviction should be refused where allegations about trial representation and proposed fresh evidence do not disclose an arguable basis for finding the conviction unsafe. Assertions founded on hindsight or mistaken recollection, and evidence from witnesses who could not materially assist, will not make a conviction arguably unsafe.

The applicant was convicted at Sheffield Crown Court on 24 November 2014 of three fraud offences and, on 15 January 2015, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

More than 1,300 days after the time for appeal, he sought an extension of time, leave to appeal his convictions, and implicitly permission to rely on fresh evidence. He alleged deficiencies by his trial representatives, principally concerning witnesses said not to have been called or whose evidence had not been obtained.

The application raised whether the exceptional delay should be excused and whether the proposed material made the convictions arguably unsafe.

1. The court dismissed both the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal conviction.

2. There are strict time limits for applications for leave to appeal. An applicant must either comply with them or give good reasons for failing to do so. As delay increases, the reasons required to justify an extension must become correspondingly more compelling. The applicant had supplied nothing approaching a good reason for a delay of 1,311 days. The extension would therefore have been refused.

3. In any event, the convictions were not arguably unsafe. The court agreed with the detailed decision of the single judge. The complaint concerning Paul Farmer did not show inadequate representation: the applicant’s own proof recognised that, if Mr Farmer withheld the truth, his evidence would undermine the defence. He was an unwilling witness, and calling him for the defence would have been highly inadvisable because the defence would have had no right to cross-examine him.

4. Even if Mr Farmer had defrauded the applicant, that did not make unsafe convictions for defrauding other persons. Those convictions rested on evidence of the applicant’s own dealings with the complainants. Other complaints were based on mistaken recollection or immaterial evidence: Mr Sanders had been called and cross-examined on the applicant’s instructions; Mr Byrne could not give the relevant evidence; and the proposed evidence of Mr Groves and Mr Oliver could not assist.

5. A loss of time order did not arise because the applicant had been released from prison. The court ordered him, under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, to pay £481.44 for the reasonable transcript costs.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal conviction in [2019] EWCA Crim 1946.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: convicted the applicant of three fraud offences on 24 November 2014 and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment on 15 January 2015.