R v Simon Davies

An extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction may be refused where the explanation does not credibly justify a substantial delay. A conviction appeal has no arguable merit where proposed mental-health grounds lack evidential foundation, the interview was fair, and bad-character evidence was properly admitted.

A sentencing judge may reject mitigation based on mental or personality disorders where the offending was planned and principally resulted from the offender’s choices. An appellate court will not interfere where that evaluation, the sentence, dangerousness finding and extended licence period were open to the sentencing judge.

Simon Davies was convicted at Aylesbury Crown Court of four counts of sexual activity with a child, contrary to section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He also pleaded guilty to sexual communication with a child under section 15 A, for which no separate penalty was imposed. He received concurrent extended sentences of 14 years, comprising 12 years’ custody and a two-year extended licence period.

His application for leave to appeal against conviction was 217 days late. He alleged mental-health issues, ineffective representation, unfair interview evidence, possible fresh evidence, and wrongful admission of a previous conviction. He also renewed his application for leave to appeal sentence, contending that mental and personality disorders had not been properly treated as reducing culpability.

1. The renewed applications were refused. The court also refused leave for the applicant to appear in person. There was no good reason to take that exceptional course, and the applications could fairly be determined from the written materials.

2. The court refused an extension of time for the conviction application. The applicant’s proposed explanation for a delay of 217 days, including alleged erroneous legal advice, late discovery of the right to appeal, and poor mental health, was not credible or sufficient to justify the delay.

3. The conviction grounds had no arguable merit in any event. There was no evidential basis for a finding that the applicant was unfit to stand trial, lacked criminal responsibility, had been treated unfairly in interview, or had a viable mental-health-based answer to the charges. The criticisms of his legal team were unfounded. The trial judge had also been clearly entitled to admit the single previous conviction and had dealt with it fairly. The safety of the convictions could not be questioned.

4. The sentence appeal was likewise unarguable. The sentencing judge had heard the trial, considered the relevant psychiatric and psychological material, and was entitled to find that the conduct was cunning, planned, and principally the product of the applicant’s choices rather than illness. The custodial term was consistent with the applicable sentencing guideline. The dangerousness finding and extended licence period were open to the judge on the facts and reports before him.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 471, the court refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and refused an extension of time for the conviction application.
• Crown Court at Aylesbury: The applicant was convicted after trial on 30 May 2022 of offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On 4 November 2023, he received concurrent extended sentences of 14 years.