R v Michael Vanstone

An extension of time to seek leave to appeal requires a proper basis for the delay. The court may nevertheless examine the proposed grounds and refuse relief where they lack substance. Allegations concerning representation, fitness to stand trial, intermediary assistance or the absence of a witness must be assessed against the trial papers, professional assessments, the summing-up and the evidence available. New evidence should be refused where it is of doubtful credibility or, even if admitted, could not afford a ground of appeal. An unsigned statement adding little to evidence already before the jury does not meet that threshold.

The applicant was convicted at Croydon Crown Court on 16 April 2019 of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and received an extended sentence of fourteen-and-a-half years. Leave to appeal against conviction had been refused. He renewed his application out of time, alleging inadequate representation, unfitness to plead, a need for an intermediary and prejudice from his mother’s absence as a witness. He also sought to adduce an unsigned statement said to be from his mother. The issues were whether time should be extended, whether the proposed grounds had substance, and whether the new statement could afford a ground of appeal.

1. Extension of time. The court, agreeing with the single judge, refused to extend the time for seeking leave to appeal. The delay exceeded 1,200 days, and the applicant had not shown a proper basis for it. His personal difficulties did not prevent him from making the application earlier. The court nevertheless considered the substance of the proposed grounds before reaching its conclusion.
2. Proposed grounds. The materials showed that the applicant had been represented to a suitable standard. There was no real issue about his fitness to stand trial. He had been assessed by a psychologist and psychiatrist, there was no recommendation that an intermediary was required, and the summing-up disclosed no deficiency in his presentation or ability to communicate. The evidence also supported the conclusion that the applicant had wanted the trial to proceed despite his mother’s absence, and her statement, which had been read at trial, assisted his self-defence case.
3. New evidence. In deciding whether to admit new evidence, the court had to consider whether it was credible and whether it might afford a ground of appeal. The proposed statement was unsigned. The court did not need to resolve the dispute about its authorship because, even if admitted, it would add little concerning the stabbing: the witness had been in another room and her evidence about what she heard had already been read to the jury. It could not therefore provide a ground of appeal.
4. The court refused the application for an extension of time, refused leave to appeal and refused the application to adduce new evidence.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The single judge refused the application to extend time. The full court agreed, refused leave to appeal and refused admission of the proposed new evidence: [2023] EWCA Crim 774.
2. Crown Court at Croydon — The applicant was convicted on 16 April 2019 of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and sentenced to an extended term of fourteen-and-a-half years. Leave to appeal against conviction was refused.