R v Michael Isaacs

A very long extension of time for a criminal appeal requires a good reason for every period of delay, assessed against the strong public interest in finality. Such an extension will ordinarily be refused unless refusal would cause injustice. A conviction entered under the law as then understood will not be reopened without substantial injustice. A later decision removing one legal head of conspiracy does not necessarily invalidate a guilty plea where the admitted facts disclose another offence, such as conspiracy to defraud. The court may examine the proposed appeal’s merits when deciding whether refusal of an extension would cause injustice.

The applicant sought an extension of more than 50 years to renew applications for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal his 1969 conviction. He had pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court to conspiracy to commit acts of public mischief and had been fined. His sentence appeal later resulted in more time to pay the fine. He was prompted to apply after the conviction was relied upon in proceedings commenced by the Information Commissioners Office in 2018. The proposed appeal relied on DPP v Withers [1975] AC 842. The central issue was whether the delay and merits justified reopening the conviction where the admitted facts might disclose conspiracy to defraud.

The application was dismissed.

1. The applicant sought an extension of more than 50 years. The court applied the principle stated in R v AYS [2023] EWCA Crim 730 that an applicant must show good reason for every period of delay, having regard to the strong public interest in finality. No good reason had been shown for the delay since 1974.
2. The court also applied R v Thorsby [2015] 1 WLR 2901 and R v Johnson [2017] 4 WLR 104. A long extension will generally be refused unless injustice would result. Where a person was properly convicted under the law as it stood, leave should not be granted without substantial injustice. The applicant had received advice in 1974 and had decided not to appeal. It was not unjust to hold him to that decision.
3. The proposed appeal also had no prospect of success. Although DPP v Withers [1975] AC 842 established that common-law conspiracy did not include a head of conspiracy to commit public mischief, the guilty plea admitted facts which still amounted to conspiracy to defraud. The court relied on the analogous reasoning in Quartermain, unreported, The Times, 23 and 24 October 1974.
4. There was no injustice, and certainly no substantial injustice, in refusing the extensions. The applications for extensions of time to renew the applications and to seek leave to appeal were dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the applicant’s non-counsel application for extensions of time to renew applications for leave to appeal.
• Court of Appeal: on 13 October 1969, extended the time for payment of the fine imposed following the applicant’s conviction.
• Central Criminal Court: on 14 February 1969, the applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit acts of public mischief and was fined, with costs and a term of imprisonment in default of payment.