R v MT

When seeking an extension of time to appeal against conviction, the court considers the reasons for delay, the interests of justice and the merits of the proposed grounds. Time limits are substantively important, and further delay after an appellant has enough information to file a notice is not justified by attempts to perfect the appeal.

On an appeal alleging inadequate legal preparation, proof of incompetence alone is insufficient. The appellant must identify serious errors or irregularities and show their potential effect on trial fairness or safety. A direction on delay in a historic abuse case should address specific prejudice where the evidence warrants it, but an imperfect direction does not render convictions unsafe where the summing-up and evidence as a whole caused no significant injustice.

The applicant was convicted at Grimsby Combined Court of 13 sexual offences against C1, arising from historic allegations covering about ten years. He was acquitted of ten further counts. He sought an extension of 462 days to appeal against conviction, relying on alleged defects in the consent and delay directions and inadequate preparation by his legal representatives. A proposed fresh-evidence ground was not pursued.

The court considered whether the reasons for the delay justified an extension and, if so, whether the grounds disclosed a significant injustice or unsafe convictions. The central issues were whether the directions materially misled the jury and whether the alleged preparation failures could have affected the fairness of the trial.

1. Extension of time. The court would have granted an extension to late November 2021, when the applicant had obtained the relevant transcripts and information. The further delay to July 2022 was unjustified. The time limits under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s 18(3), are substantively important. An appellant who has enough information to file an out-of-time notice should do so without delaying further in pursuit of a perfect appeal notice.
2. Consent direction. The direction used threats, intimidation and abuse as examples of circumstances in which consent may be absent. Read in the context of the summing-up, it did not tell the jury that such conduct had necessarily occurred. Consent was not a live issue because the applicant denied that the events happened. Ground 1 was rejected.
3. Delay direction. The direction was just adequate, though it could have expressly addressed specific prejudice arising from historic delay. Where the facts warrant it, a fuller direction should explain how lost records, unavailable witnesses, uncertain dates and faded memory may assist the defence, and should direct the jury to take delay into account when deciding whether the prosecution had proved guilt. Here, the earlier complaint, the evidence of lost records, the detailed count-by-count summing-up and the jury’s careful acquittals meant that the deficiency caused no significant injustice and did not undermine safety.
4. Preparation and safety. The court applied the principle in R v Sutherland & Khan that alleged incompetence must be linked to identifiable serious errors or irregularities resulting in an unfair or unsafe trial. The court accepted that some matters should have been handled better, including showing the applicant the ABE interview and taking statements from Rachel and Chloe. But no alleged omission could realistically have affected the trial’s fairness. The convictions were not unsafe.
5. The application for the longer extension of time was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the application for an extension of time of 462 days to appeal against conviction. It stated that an extension would have been granted only to late November 2021.
• Grimsby Combined Court: The applicant was convicted on 13 counts and sentenced on 30 April 2021 to custodial terms including a special custodial sentence as an offender of particular concern.