R v Florin Bogdan Scorcea

A renewed application for permission to appeal, together with extensions of time, may be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable error or unfairness. Significant unexplained delay is an additional reason for refusing an extension. Where hopeless grounds are pursued and renewed, the court may make a loss-of-time order under the powers conferred by the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Liverpool on 30 September 2020, the applicant was convicted of two assaults by beating, making a threat to kill and blackmail. He received an extended sentence of eight years for the threat to kill, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

A single judge refused permission to appeal. The applicant renewed the application and sought extensions of 160 days and 202 days. His grounds concerned the use of English at trial, telephone recordings and their translations, legal representation, an allegedly uncalled witness, and mental health issues. The central questions were whether there was any arguable basis for challenging the safety of the convictions and whether the delays should be excused.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The two applications for extensions of time were refused, and a loss-of-time order of 56 days was made. That period was not to count towards the applicant’s sentence.

1. The court agreed with the single judge that the grounds disclosed no arguable error and that the trial had been fair. The applicant had access to an interpreter throughout the trial and had stated that he understood English. The legal team had represented him to a high standard, including successfully resisting the prosecution’s bad-character application.
2. The complaints about the telephone evidence and its translation did not establish unfairness. The recordings were disclosed when the applicant instructed that he wished to rely on them. The translations were considered and agreed by the interpreters assisting the defence and prosecution. The jury received the Romanian transcript, literal and idiomatic explanations, and appropriate directions about the meaning of the alleged threat.
3. The complaints about an uncalled witness and mental health issues lacked an identifiable basis. No witness was identified, and the material before the court showed that the applicant could instruct counsel, follow proceedings and give evidence. Any concern about mental health had been a matter for the defence team and the applicant to raise before trial.
4. The absence of any proper explanation for the substantial delays would itself justify a loss-of-time order. Combined with grounds that were wholly without merit, the application fell within the procedure discussed in R v Gray [2014] EWCA Crim 2372. The court therefore exercised the relevant statutory powers to impose the 56-day order.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on 6 July 2022, dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal, refused both extensions of time and ordered 56 days’ loss of time.
2. Single judge: refused permission to appeal on 11 August 2021 and gave detailed reasons that the grounds had no arguable merit.
3. Crown Court at Liverpool: following trial before HHJ Swinnerton and a jury, the applicant was convicted on 30 September 2020.