R v Nigel Wright

In deciding whether to extend time for a criminal appeal, the court may consider the proposed grounds on their merits. Practical difficulties faced by an unrepresented prisoner are relevant, but do not necessarily explain the whole delay. An extension should be refused where no ground is properly arguable and any appeal would be bound to fail. For blackmail, Bitcoin can amount to money. Limited opportunity to instruct lawyers, caused by restrictions, does not establish an unfair trial where no adjournment was sought and the material shows no deprivation of fairness.

Following a trial in the Central Criminal Court before Warby J and a jury, the applicant was convicted of four offences contrary to section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 and two offences contrary to section 38(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. He was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. A single judge refused an extension of time to appeal. A full court later refused the renewed application, but that determination was reopened because the court had misunderstood whether legal professional privilege had been waived. The present court reconsidered the application afresh and considered whether the delay should be extended and whether any proposed ground gave an arguable basis for challenging the safety of the convictions.

The court refused the renewed application for an extension of time. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction consequently failed.

1. Extension of time and merits. The court recognised the practical difficulties faced by a person in custody acting alone, and accepted that the applicant could not lodge his notice within the initial 28-day period. His explanation did not account for all the subsequent delay. The court nevertheless considered the merits of the proposed grounds. An extension would serve no purpose where no ground could properly be argued and any appeal would be bound to fail.
2. Blackmail and Bitcoin. The argument that Bitcoin could not constitute money for blackmail was misconceived. Bitcoin can amount to money for that purpose. In any event, it had been agreed at trial that Bitcoin was a form of money. That agreement was proper and caused no prejudice. Without it, the prosecution could have amended the indictment.
3. Evidence and preparation. An early case summary did not establish non-disclosure or an unsafe conviction. The relevant witness had explained her uncertainty about when she purchased the contaminated jars, the summary had been disclosed, and the jury were entitled to reach their conclusion on the evidence as a whole. Covid-related restrictions and injunctions limited the applicant’s opportunity to instruct his representatives, but no application had been made to delay the trial and there was no basis for concluding that he had been deprived of a fair trial. The judge’s directions were properly tailored to the issues, and no valid criticism could be made of the legal representatives.
4. Further appeal. An appeal to the Supreme Court required prior leave to appeal to this court and a certificate that the decision involved a point of law of general public importance. Neither condition was satisfied.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) – The present court reconsidered the renewed application afresh and refused an extension of time; the renewed application for leave to appeal therefore failed: [2022] EWCA Crim 1813.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) – A full court refused the renewed application on 20 May 2022. The determination was subsequently reopened because the court had misunderstood whether legal professional privilege had been waived.
• Single judge – Refused the application for an extension of time.
• Central Criminal Court – Following a trial before Warby J and a jury, the applicant was convicted of six offences and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.