R v Jay Lewis Perry

An extension of time for a criminal appeal requires a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Knowledge of the right to appeal and receipt of negative advice within the time limit, followed by months of inactivity, will not justify substantial delay. Where the proposed grounds have no merit, the court may refuse a further extension needed to renew an application and indicate that leave would be refused. A police investigation is not defective merely because officers did not interview defence witnesses where no specific witnesses were identified for interview and the relevant witnesses were later called.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Birmingham on 10 March 2020 of four offences following trial, having pleaded guilty to two further offences. On 14 April 2020 he received concurrent custodial sentences and an extended sentence. He sought leave to appeal against conviction on 13 July 2020, together with an extension of time. The single judge refused the extension and considered the proposed grounds meritless. The applicant renewed the application, relying on delay caused by legal advice, a prison transfer and the 2020 lockdown. He advanced complaints concerning the jury, advocacy, hearsay and police investigation of defence witnesses. The central issues were whether further time should be granted and whether the proposed appeal had any merit.

Application refused. The renewed application for an extension of time was rejected. The court agreed with the single judge that leave to appeal would have been refused in any event.

1. Delay. The applicant knew of his right of appeal and had received negative advice within the 28-day period. He then took no action for a further three months. The reasons advanced, including transfer between prisons and the lockdown, did not justify the considerable delay. That was sufficient to dispose of the renewed application.
2. Merits of the proposed grounds. The allegation of improper contact between a police officer and a juror had not been raised at trial. The officer confirmed that he had had no contact with any juror, and the jury had returned unanimous verdicts. The complaint about advocacy was contradicted by the trial materials: the prosecution witnesses had been cross-examined, the applicant’s case and challenges to the complainant’s credibility had been put, the applicant had given evidence, defence witnesses had been called and appropriate directions had been given.
3. The evidence relied on by the prosecution was not hearsay. Any hearsay objection had not been taken. The agreed timeline supplied at the jury’s request merely brought together evidence already given and was neither new evidence nor hearsay.
4. The police were under no obligation to visit the defendant’s witnesses where the defence statement did not identify witnesses who should be interviewed. The family members mentioned in it had been approached but declined to give statements, and the applicant called the witnesses on whose evidence he wished to rely.
5. A further 160-day extension would serve no purpose because the proposed appeal had no merit. There was therefore no reason to permit renewal of either the extension application or the application for leave.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 27 January 2022, the renewed application for an extension of time was refused. The court agreed that the proposed grounds had no merit and that leave to appeal would have been refused.
2. Crown Court at Birmingham — The applicant was convicted on 10 March 2020 and sentenced on 14 April 2020.