R v Alex Crane

A defendant’s voluntary decision to dispense with legal representation does not of itself render a criminal trial unfair. The trial judge must nevertheless take fair measures to assist an unrepresented defendant and ensure that the jury is not prejudiced by self-representation.

An appeal is not an opportunity to introduce matters that could or should have been raised at trial. Where renewed grounds are wholly without merit, particularly after a clear warning, the Court of Appeal may make a loss of time order to protect court resources.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Chelmsford of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that he stabbed a man whom he believed to be involved with his former partner. The applicant relied on self-defence.

He dismissed his legal representatives during the trial and later renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction after the single judge had refused leave. His grounds alleged deficiencies in his former representation, unfairness caused by self-representation, errors by the judge, and other evidential matters.

The central issue was whether any ground disclosed an arguable basis for challenging the safety or fairness of the conviction.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. The court found no merit in any ground advanced. The conviction depended principally on the conflicting accounts of the victim and the applicant, and the jury had rejected the applicant’s account of lawful self-defence.
2. The complaints about former solicitors and counsel were unmeritorious. The applicant had declined to waive privilege, and the material before the court did not suggest incompetent representation. It instead showed that his solicitors had actively pursued his defence while instructed.
3. The applicant’s own decision to dismiss his lawyers did not make the trial unfair. The trial judge gave him a detailed explanation of the trial process, an opportunity to reconsider proceeding without representation, practical assistance in preparing to give evidence, and unusual latitude to recall and call witnesses. The judge also directed the jury scrupulously not to treat self-representation as a reason for prejudice.
4. The court rejected the complaints concerning the judge’s conduct and summing-up. It held that the judge had fairly presented the defence case and that the applicant’s interruptions justified the warning that he might be returned to the cells.
5. Other proposed grounds either repeated the same complaints, raised unarguable matters, or concerned evidence that could or should have been put before the jury. An appeal could not be used as a further opportunity to advance such matters.
6. A loss of time order was made. Having regard to the lack of merit in the renewed application and the single judge’s clear warning, the court directed that 56 days should not count towards the applicant’s sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused in R v Alex Crane, [2024] EWCA Crim 1547. A 56-day loss of time order was made.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: The applicant was convicted by a jury on 25 January 2024 of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and was sentenced on 31 May 2024 to 10 years’ imprisonment.