R v James Devine

The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a conviction imposed by a magistrates’ court. A defendant who has pleaded guilty and confirmed that choice in writing cannot ordinarily evade the consequences of the plea through allegations of entrapment, dissatisfaction with representation or shortcomings in psychological evidence where those matters disclose no arguable basis for setting the plea aside. A sentencing judge may proceed without further adjournment where the defendant has repeatedly delayed proceedings, refused to attend and given contradictory accounts about mental-health difficulties. The judge must apply the relevant guideline, observe totality and consider relevant mitigation, including previous good character. Returning from another country to attend proceedings was irrelevant to sentence.

The applicant was convicted by Aylesbury Magistrates’ Court of two stalking offences. After conviction, he was charged in the Crown Court at Aylesbury with a further stalking offence involving serious alarm or distress, contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 42 months’ imprisonment.

After the single judge refused permission, the applicant renewed applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The central issues were whether the magistrates’ convictions could be challenged in this court, whether the guilty plea could be reopened, and whether the sentence was arguably wrong in principle or excessive.

1. Disposition. The court refused to permit withdrawal of the applications because finality and the interests of justice required a clear resolution. It refused extensions of time and leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.
2. Magistrates’ court convictions. The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the two convictions imposed by the magistrates’ court. Any such appeal would therefore have been bound to fail [11].
3. Guilty plea in the Crown Court. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the indictment offence and had confirmed in writing that the plea was his choice. His complaints about his lawyers, alleged entrapment and inadequate psychological evidence did not make it arguable that he could evade the consequences of that plea. The alleged trap could not affect the guilty plea [12]–[13]. Leave to appeal against conviction was accordingly refused.
4. Sentence. In the circumstances, the sentencing judge was entitled to proceed without a further adjournment or delay. The applicant had repeatedly attempted to postpone the proceedings, had refused to attend court and had given contradictory accounts to the probation service about mental-health difficulties. The judge had carefully applied the relevant sentencing guideline, observed the principle of totality and given weight to his previous good character. His return from Ireland to attend proceedings was irrelevant to sentence [14]–[16]. It was not arguable that the sentence was excessive or wrong in principle [17].

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2022] EWCA Crim 1838, the renewed applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal were refused.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the applicant’s applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal.
• Crown Court at Aylesbury: The applicant pleaded guilty to the further stalking offence and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 42 months’ imprisonment.
• Aylesbury Magistrates’ Court: Convicted the applicant after trial of two stalking offences.