R v Connor Peter Crawford

When deciding whether to extend time to renew an application for leave to appeal, the court must consider whether the proposed appeal has arguable grounds. For a conviction, the question is whether it is arguably unsafe. For a sentence, the question is whether it is arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. If the relevant threshold is not met, an extension should be refused because it would serve no purpose. A statutory surcharge forms part of the sentence and must be pronounced in open court. Adding it administratively, without pronouncement, is unlawful.

The applicant pleaded guilty to two firearm offences and was convicted at the Crown Court at Liverpool of two further offences arising from possession of a loaded pistol. He received concurrent sentences totalling 10 years’ imprisonment. He sought extensions of time to renew applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence after refusal by a single judge.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the convictions were arguably unsafe, whether the sentence was arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, and whether a surcharge recorded administratively formed part of the sentence.

1. Conviction. The court refused an extension of 17 days to renew the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction. The suggested criticism of the judge’s summing-up, even if accurately recalled, did not make the convictions arguably unsafe in light of the strong evidence. Challenges to the evidence were matters for the jury, and the criticisms of the applicant’s legal representatives had no substance. There were therefore no arguable grounds of appeal and leave would have been refused.
2. Sentence. The court refused an extension of 17 days to renew the application for an extension of time to appeal against sentence. The sentencing judge had applied the relevant law methodically. He considered the dangerousness assessment, concluded that a determinate sentence adequately protected the public, treated Count 1 as the lead offence, and applied the appropriate guilty-plea discount to Counts 2 and 4. The sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The applicant’s family circumstances and the effects of imprisonment during the Covid-19 pandemic did not alter that conclusion.
3. Surcharge. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.161 A, the court was required to make a surcharge order. A surcharge is part of the sentence and must be pronounced in open court. Although £181 had been entered on the Crown Court record and court log, it had not appeared in the sentencing remarks and had evidently been added administratively. That addition was unlawful. The court directed the Crown Court to amend its record by removing the surcharge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 10 May 2023, refused extensions of time to renew applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and directed removal of the administratively added surcharge from the Crown Court record: [2023] EWCA Crim 711.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: The applicant pleaded guilty to two offences, was convicted of two further offences, and was sentenced on 9 October 2020 to concurrent terms totalling 10 years’ imprisonment.