R v John Edwin Charles Taylor

An appellate court may refuse a substantial extension of time where no good reason is established for the delay and the proposed appeals are wholly without merit. A guilty plea will not be treated as arguably unsafe where the contemporaneous material supports an informed plea and provides no evidence of defective advice or dissatisfaction with the plea. A sentence for a serious breach of a non-molestation order is not arguably wrong in principle or manifestly excessive merely because the offender had no previous convictions and health difficulties, where the sentencing judge took those matters into account.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Luton Crown Court to breaching a non-molestation order. He was later acquitted of attempted murder and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment for the breach.

More than two years out of time, he sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, together with extensions of time. He alleged defective representation, lack of service of the order, mental-health difficulties and an inability to hear proceedings. The court obtained material from his former legal representatives after a waiver of privilege.

The central issues were whether there was good reason for the extensive delay and whether either proposed appeal was arguable.

1. The renewed applications for extensions of time were refused. No good reason was shown for delays of 741 days in renewing the conviction application and approximately 15 weeks in renewing the application concerning sentence. The allegations that solicitors and the Probation Service had wrongly advised the applicant to complete his sentence and probation before appealing were unsubstantiated.

2. The proposed appeal against conviction was wholly without merit. The court agreed with the single judge that the contemporaneous evidence from the applicant’s legal team showed an informed decision to plead guilty to breach of the non-molestation order while contesting attempted murder. His signed proof of evidence acknowledged knowledge of the order and described conduct which constituted a breach. There was no evidence of incorrect advice, or of doubt or dissatisfaction with the guilty plea when it was entered.

3. The proposed appeal against sentence was likewise wholly without merit. The sentencing transcript showed that the judge had taken account of the absence of previous convictions and the applicant’s health problems. The serious breach involved forced entry into the former partner’s home and an assault shortly after the order was made. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the offending as falling within the highest categories of harm and culpability and to impose 20 months’ imprisonment after allowances for pandemic prison conditions, health and the guilty plea.

4. As the sentence had been served, no loss of time order could be made. Under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the applicant was ordered to pay £84.84, being the reasonable cost of the transcripts.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused the renewed applications for extensions of time and held that the proposed appeals against conviction and sentence were wholly without merit.

• Single judge — on 9 July 2023, refused the applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

• Crown Court at Luton — the applicant pleaded guilty on 20 November 2020 to breach of a non-molestation order. On 3 June 2021, he was acquitted of attempted murder and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment for the breach.