R v Max Perry Manus Prior

An extension of time to seek leave to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable error and extending time would serve no useful purpose. A defendant is not required to have been arrested at the scene of an offence. Nor is there a legal difficulty merely because the defendant was initially arrested for one offence and later charged with a more serious offence, provided the evidence supports the charge. Complaints about representation, evidence, or trial preparation require an identifiable and material basis; unsupported assertions do not establish an arguable ground of appeal.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Teesside of wounding with intent and received an extended sentence of eight years, comprising six years’ custody and a two-year extension period. He renewed applications for an extension of 409 days to seek leave to appeal and for leave to appeal against conviction, following refusal by a single judge.

His grounds concerned legal representation, the quality and alleged alteration of CCTV, an allegedly changed witness statement, the conduct of his trial advocate, the place of arrest, and the difference between the offence for which he was arrested and that for which he was charged.

1. The applications were refused. There were no arguable grounds of appeal, and there would be no point in granting the lengthy extension of time sought.
2. The applicant’s complaint that he lacked representation at the police station and at court did not establish an arguable ground. He could have had a solicitor if he wished, and, importantly, he was represented before and at trial.
3. The complaints about CCTV did not disclose an arguable error. The footage was of sufficient quality to be used at trial, and there was no evidence that it had been altered. Showing it on different screens did not establish that the film itself had been changed.
4. The complaint about Louise Taylor’s witness statement was unsupported. The applicant did not identify how it had been changed or why any change mattered. His complaint about trial counsel was also mistaken: the advocate was not the person said to have prosecuted in the magistrates’ court. The applicant had instructed counsel not to question prosecution witnesses, and counsel followed those instructions. The court considered that he had been properly represented.
5. The law did not require arrest at the scene of the offence. The place of arrest was immaterial.
6. It was unobjectionable that the applicant had been arrested for one offence and later charged with a more serious offence. That commonly occurred, and the evidence was more than sufficient to justify the conviction for wounding with intent.
7. The trial judge had given the jury appropriate directions on the elements of the offence and self-defence. No arguable basis for disturbing the conviction was shown.

• Crown Court at Teesside: The applicant was convicted of wounding with intent on 25 March 2022 and sentenced on 24 June 2022 to an extended sentence of eight years.
• Single judge: The application for leave to appeal was refused.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction were refused.