Allison, R v

A renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction should be refused where the proposed grounds, including purportedly fresh material, disclose no arguable basis on which the safety of the conviction could be affected.

Under section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, a court may direct that time spent in custody pending an appeal application does not count towards sentence. A loss of time order is justified where a warned applicant persists with an application that is wholly without merit and wastes court time and resources.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Exeter of stalking involving serious alarm or distress, contrary to section 4A(1)(b) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and three offences of breaching a restraining order, contrary to section 5(5) of that Act. He received five and a half years’ imprisonment.

After a single judge refused leave to appeal against conviction, the applicant renewed his application for an extension of time in which to seek leave. He advanced complaints about bad-character evidence, the summing-up, prosecution submissions, the sufficiency and relevance of evidence, and disclosure. He also relied on material from the complainant’s civil proceedings which he said contradicted her trial evidence.

The court considered whether any ground or new material could affect the safety of the convictions and whether a loss of time order should be made.

1. The renewed application was refused. The court wholly agreed with the single judge’s conclusion that none of the six proposed grounds was arguable. The applicant had been professionally and skilfully represented. The bad-character evidence was properly admitted, the direction on it was exemplary, the internet-search evidence was highly probative, and the summing-up was accurate and focused.

2. The minor error in the bad-character schedule did not affect the safety of the convictions. The prosecution evidence was overwhelming. The disclosure complaint did not withstand examination.

3. The additional material from the complainant’s civil claim could not potentially affect the safety of the convictions. Its suggested inconsistency concerned the effect of the harassment on activities such as bridge and yoga, and did not provide a meritorious new ground.

4. A loss of time order was made. The applicant had been warned by the single judge of that possibility but persisted with an application which was wholly without merit. Applying the rationale stated in R v Gray and Others [2014] EWCA Crim 2372, the court treated the resulting waste of precious time and resources as justifying use of the power under section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

5. The court directed that 28 days spent in custody pending the renewed application should not count towards the applicant’s sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2020] EWCA Crim 465, the full court refused the renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, and made a 28-day loss of time order.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), single judge. Leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The applicant was warned that an unsuccessful renewed application might result in a loss of time order.
• Crown Court at Exeter. On 19 February 2019, the applicant was convicted of stalking involving serious alarm or distress and three breaches of a restraining order. On 22 March 2019, he was sentenced to five and a half years’ imprisonment. No lower-court citation was stated.