R v Kirk Daniels

An exceptionally late application for leave to appeal against conviction may be refused where no good reason is given for the delay and the proposed grounds disclose no arguable merit. Allegations concerning inadequate representation, disclosure, or new evidence require a proper evidential basis and sufficient particularisation. A loss of time order is appropriate where, despite a clear warning, an applicant pursues a wholly unmeritorious application that wastes court time and impedes the timely consideration of meritorious applications.

The applicant sought a renewed extension of time, approximately six and a half years late, to apply for leave to appeal against convictions at the Crown Court at Wood Green for possession of a bladed instrument, attempted wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

He alleged inadequate representation by his lawyers, failures of disclosure, and unspecified new evidence. The single judge had refused the application. The applicant had previously appealed against sentence only; that appeal was dismissed in [2018] EWCA Crim 112.

The central issue was whether the delay should be extended and whether any proposed ground of appeal was arguable.

1. The court refused the extension of time and refused leave to appeal. There was no good reason for the exceptionally long delay. Nevertheless, as the single judge had done, the court considered the merits of the proposed appeal.

2. The complaint about trial representation was wholly without merit. Counsel’s response showed that he had taken instructions, represented the applicant throughout the retrial, cross-examined prosecution witnesses appropriately, and put the applicant’s case. The allegations that lawyers had tampered with evidence or colluded with the prosecution were unsupported.

3. The disclosure complaint was unparticularised and unfounded. Counsel confirmed that the unused-material schedule had been considered, appropriate disclosure applications had been made, and the items identified by the applicant had been served.

4. The asserted new evidence did not provide an arguable ground. If it concerned the potential witness Parrish, the material was speculative and arguably more favourable to the prosecution. If it concerned another matter, it was unidentified and unspecified.

5. Having been expressly warned of the risk, the applicant pursued applications which were wholly without merit and wasted court time. The court made a loss of time order under which 28 days already served would not count towards his sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction was refused in [2024] EWCA Crim 1008.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). A separate appeal against sentence was dismissed on 23 January 2018: [2018] EWCA Crim 112.

• Crown Court at Wood Green. The applicant was convicted following a trial on 21 April 2016 and a retrial on 13 September 2016. He was sentenced on 26 November 2016 to an extended sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment.