R v Joseph Ronan

In a renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction following unequivocal guilty pleas, complaints about disclosure, legal advice, the basis of plea and alleged procedural misconduct must identify an arguable ground capable of affecting the conviction. Matters that do not go to conviction cannot do so. Evidence relied on as fresh evidence cannot assist where it is neither fresh nor reliable and does not bear on the safety of the convictions. An extension of time requires a good reason for delay. A wholly without-merit application that wastes court time may attract a loss-of-time order.

The applicant pleaded guilty to offences involving harassment and assault and was sentenced by the Crown Court at Luton. He abandoned an earlier sentence appeal but renewed an application for an extension of 266 days in which to seek permission to appeal against conviction. He also sought under section 23 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 to adduce a witness statement as fresh evidence.

He alleged misleading advice, disclosure failures, wrongful admissions, professional misconduct and conspiracy. A single judge refused permission. The central issues were whether there was good reason for the delay, whether the consolidated grounds disclosed an arguable challenge to the convictions, and whether the proposed evidence was admissible and capable of affecting their safety.

The Court of Appeal refused the extension of time, permission to appeal against conviction, application to adduce fresh evidence and request for disclosure.

1. Conviction appeal. The guilty pleas were unequivocal and consistent with admissions made in the applicant’s grounds. The allegations against the Crown and former legal representatives had no substance. Complaints concerning the defence statement and basis of plea did not go to the convictions.
2. Fresh evidence. The material sought under section 23 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 was neither fresh nor reliable. In any event, it did not concern the assault or the course of harassment and therefore did not undermine the safety of the convictions. The documents sought likewise disclosed no arguable ground of appeal.
3. Delay and merit. No good reason for the delay had been given. The consolidated grounds merely repeated earlier complaints and raised no arguable ground of appeal. The application was wholly without merit.
4. Loss of time. Applying the observations in R v Gray and others [2014] EWCA Crim 237, the court made a loss-of-time order. Twenty-eight days spent in custody were directed not to count towards the time in custody, in order to discourage unmeritorious applications that waste the court’s time.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 815, refused the extension of time, permission to appeal against conviction, fresh-evidence application and disclosure request, and made a loss-of-time order.
• Single judge: Refused permission to appeal against conviction and did not consider the application wholly without merit.
• Crown Court at Luton: The applicant pleaded guilty on 22 April 2021 and was sentenced on 26 August 2021. An earlier application concerning the guilty pleas and a sentence appeal were abandoned.