R v Wesley Kevin Davison

An extension of time and leave to appeal should be refused where the proposed conviction appeal identifies no arguable unfairness or error capable of affecting the central issues at trial. Complaints about representation, disclosure, jury matters and the summing-up require a sufficient evidential basis and materiality before they justify further investigation or an appeal.

In sentencing, the trial judge is entitled to weigh personal mitigation against the seriousness of an attempted offence and relevant antecedents. A sentence within the applicable guideline range will not be arguable as manifestly excessive merely because no pre-sentence report was obtained.

The applicant was convicted at Guildford Crown Court on 8 October 2021 of attempted robbery arising from an attempt to take cash from a hotel office using force. He was sentenced on 3 March 2022 to four years’ imprisonment, consecutive to a sentence already being served.

After a single judge refused permission, he renewed applications for a substantial extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. He alleged inadequate representation, disclosure failures, prejudice arising from jury matters and custody, and an unfair summing-up. He also submitted that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently considered his health and should have obtained a pre-sentence report.

1. Applications refused. There were no arguable grounds against either conviction or sentence. Consequently, no purpose would be served by granting the substantial extensions of time required.

2. The complaints about trial representation did not disclose arguable incompetence or unfairness. An expert examination of the complainant’s injury would not have resolved the real issue, namely whether any injury was caused deliberately or accidentally. The court could identify no failure by counsel at trial, and the applicant had been able to explain the contents of his earlier defence statement in evidence.

3. The remaining trial complaints did not undermine the safety of the conviction. The jury had been directed not to hold the applicant’s custody against him. The medical material placed before the jury did not support the asserted urinary condition. The applicant had agreed to return to custody while the jury deliberated, and there was no unfairness in the summing-up. The allegations concerning a juror and disclosure had no sufficient factual basis or potential impact on the central questions of why the applicant was in the office and what occurred there.

4. On sentence, the completed offence would have fallen within category 2B robbery, with a starting point of four years and a range of three to six years. The attempt was close to completion and the judge was entitled to treat the applicant’s extensive previous convictions as aggravating. It was for the judge to weigh personal mitigation. A four-year consecutive sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive, and a pre-sentence report was unnecessary in the circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused.
• Guildford Crown Court: the applicant was convicted of attempted robbery on 8 October 2021 and sentenced on 3 March 2022 to four years’ imprisonment, consecutive to an existing sentence.