Davies, R. v

An exceptionally late application for permission to appeal against conviction will be refused where a represented defendant who pleaded guilty identifies no arguable defect in the conviction. An assertion that medical difficulties rendered the defendant unfit to plead requires material capable of undermining the propriety of the plea. The court may attach weight to counsel’s account that capacity, understanding and fitness to plead would have been assessed, particularly where the point was not raised in earlier proceedings.

The applicant sought an extension of time, almost nine and a half years after his guilty pleas, to appeal convictions for attempted grievous bodily harm, criminal damage and putting a person in fear of harassment.

He contended that medical difficulties after cancer treatment, medication, disorientation and alleged police assault had made him unfit to stand trial and unable to understand counsel’s advice. He also suggested that an anticipated hospital order had not been honoured.

The applicant had previously pursued an out-of-time appeal against sentence, which the Court of Appeal refused in 2014. The present application raised whether his assertions disclosed an arguable ground to challenge convictions entered on guilty pleas.

1. The application for an extension of time was refused, and the renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction was held to be without merit.

2. The court accepted the correction that the applicant did not have learning difficulties. That correction did not affect the single judge’s conclusion that the application disclosed no arguable ground of appeal.

3. The applicant had been properly represented when he pleaded guilty. His former counsel stated, following a waiver of privilege, that he would have assessed the applicant’s mental capacity and fitness to plead. Counsel would have raised any concern about unfitness or lack of understanding with the trial judge. He would also have explained the nature and consequences of a guilty plea, the evidence, sentencing guidance and dangerousness.

4. The court had no doubt that counsel acted in accordance with those professional duties. The alleged matters were not raised when the applicant sought to challenge his sentence in 2014. The very long delay and absence of material supporting unfitness to plead meant that the proposed conviction appeal had no merit.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction was refused in [2019] EWCA Crim 233.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In 2014, the court refused a renewed out-of-time application for permission to appeal against sentence, while correcting the credit for time spent on remand.

• Crown Court: On 9 October 2009 the applicant pleaded guilty. On 13 November 2009 he received imprisonment for public protection pursuant to section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.