R v Zackery Griffiths

Leave to appeal against sentence should be refused where there is no arguable error of principle and it is not reasonably arguable that the sentence is manifestly excessive. Allegations that mitigation was omitted must be assessed against the plea in mitigation and the sentencing remarks. A substantial record of relevant convictions may aggravate sentence. Where the merits would fail even if an application were in time, an extension of time does not alter the outcome. The court may consider the merits and refuse both renewal and the extension.

After pleading guilty to drug offences, the applicant received an overall sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment in the Crown Court at Swansea. He renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after a single judge refused leave and sought an extension of 45 days. His six grounds challenged the offence categorisation, totality, concurrent sentences, alleged failures by counsel to present mitigation, consideration of ADHD, and alleged unequal treatment. The central issue was whether any ground disclosed an arguable sentencing error or a sentence that was manifestly excessive, and whether time should be extended.

Mr Justice Fraser delivered the judgment of the court. The renewed application and the application for an extension of time were refused.

1. The court fully adopted and endorsed the single judge’s explanation for refusing leave. None of the six grounds disclosed an arguable basis for intervention.
2. The sentencing judge had categorised the principal offence as Category 3 harm with a significant role. The starting point was one year’s custody, increased to reflect the applicant’s relevant antecedents, with a reduction for his guilty pleas producing a sentence of 20 months. The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in that exercise.
3. The complaint that counsel had failed to present mitigation was contradicted by the transcript of the plea in mitigation and the sentencing remarks. The mitigation had been presented to the sentencing court. The available material permitted counsel only limited scope to advance the case.
4. The applicant’s offending was repeat offending and his record included relevant drug convictions. The challenges based on totality, the concurrent sentences, ADHD, inconsistency and unequal treatment did not make the sentence arguably excessive. It was not reasonably arguable that the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive.
5. Since the application would fail on its merits even if made within time, the delay did not affect the outcome. The court therefore refused the extension of time as well as renewal of the application.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and refused an extension of time.
• Single judge—refused the original application for leave to appeal.