REGINA v NATHAN OLOYOWANG

On an application to extend time to seek leave to appeal, the proposed ground must be arguable. Evidence explaining why police officers attempted to stop a vehicle may be relevant to the alleged offence even where it suggests suspected drug dealing. Where the evidence concerns the facts of the offence, it does not engage the bad character provisions merely because it is prejudicial. The court must consider any application to exclude it under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. An appellate court will not interfere where the trial judge applied the correct principles, gave clear reasons and addressed prejudice through an appropriate jury direction.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Wood Green of dangerous driving and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment, with a 23-month driving disqualification and a requirement to pass an extended test. After sentence he absconded, but the Court proceeded because his solicitors had authority to make the application before he absconded, applying R v Okedare [2014] 1 WLR 4071.

He sought an extension of 16 days to apply for leave to appeal against conviction. The proposed ground challenged the admission of evidence that police officers suspected a drug transaction and intended to search under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The central issue was whether that evidence should have been excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

1. Application to proceed. The court proceeded to determine the application despite the applicant’s absconding. His solicitors had received authority before sentence and before the absconding, consistently with R v Okedare [2014] 1 WLR 4071.
2. On an application to extend time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction, the question of extension depends upon whether the proposed ground of appeal is arguable.
3. Admissibility of the evidence. The proposed appeal was unarguable. The evidence about the officers’ suspicion of drug dealing and their intended drugs search was not irrelevant. It was material to the alleged facts of the dangerous-driving offence. It therefore fell within section 98(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and was not suggested to engage the bad character code.
4. The only basis advanced for exclusion was section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Recorder had identified and applied the correct principles, and had explained why the evidence was important explanatory evidence. It enabled the jury to understand why the officers approached the vehicle and supported the prosecution case about why the applicant might have driven dangerously to escape.
5. The objection went to the exercise of the Recorder’s discretion. There was no arguable basis for impugning that exercise. Any prejudice was capable of being addressed by directions, and the Recorder directed the jury, in substance, that the applicant was being tried solely for dangerous driving and not for a drugs offence.
6. It was therefore not arguable that the conviction was unsafe. The application for an extension of time was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The full court refused the application for a 16-day extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction, holding that the proposed ground was unarguable.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: The applicant was convicted of dangerous driving on 26 March 2021 and sentenced on 4 June 2021 to ten months’ imprisonment. He was disqualified from driving for 23 months and until passing an extended test.