Marks, R v

A lengthy extension of time for appealing against sentence requires a good reason for the delay. The merits of the proposed appeal must also be arguable. A complaint that matters were ignored will not establish sentencing error where the sentencing judge expressly considered the relevant psychiatric evidence and mitigation. Allegations concerning the victim or the fairness of the trial do not support a sentence appeal unless they demonstrate that the sentence was manifestly excessive or otherwise inappropriate. Complaints directed principally to the conviction or unrelated matters do not justify an extension of time for appealing against sentence.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Croydon on 2 March 2018 of four breaches of a restraining order, contrary to section 5(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On 13 April 2018 he received concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment on each count.

He applied 733 days out of time for leave to appeal against sentence. The single judge refused an extension, finding no good reason for the delay and no arguable sentencing error. The applicant renewed the application, relying on alleged failures to consider his mitigation and health, matters concerning the victim, and alleged denial of legal representation at trial. The central issues were whether the delay should be extended and whether the proposed sentence appeal had any merit.

1. The Court refused the renewed application for an extension of time. The delay was 733 days. The applicant's explanations, including that he had been told the time limit had expired and that the Covid-19 pandemic had caused delay, did not amount to a good reason.
2. The proposed appeal against sentence had no merit. The relevant question was whether the sentencing judge had made an error resulting in a sentence that was manifestly excessive or otherwise inappropriate. The concurrent 12-month sentences, imposed after trial and in accordance with the applicable sentencing guidelines, did not meet that threshold.
3. The sentencing judge had expressly considered the psychiatric report, including the applicant's cerebral palsy and diagnosed disorders, and had observed him during the trial. The complaint that health problems and mitigation had been ignored was therefore unsupported.
4. The allegations that the victim was a police informer or had hijacked the applicant's accounts were unsubstantiated and would not in any event justify a reduction in sentence. The court log showed that the applicant had been represented until he chose to represent himself. There was no indication that the trial was unfair, and the sentence was appropriate irrespective of whether he was represented. Complaints directed to the conviction or unrelated matters could not establish an arguable sentence appeal.

The application was accordingly refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2021] EWCA Crim 657, the renewed application for an extension of time to appeal against sentence was refused.
• Crown Court at Croydon — The applicant was convicted on 2 March 2018 and sentenced on 13 April 2018 to concurrent terms of 12 months' imprisonment on four counts.