R v Lee Pardoe

A substantial extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction is not in the interests of justice where the explanations for a prolonged delay are inconsistent, unsupported and lack credibility.

A conviction following an unequivocal, voluntary and informed guilty plea is ordinarily safe. The applicant must show that the plea was vitiated, that the proceedings were unlawful or an abuse of process, or, exceptionally, that the admission was false because the applicant did not commit the offence. A claim that the prosecution case was weak, or that unadvanced arguments might have caused a jury to doubt guilt, does not suffice.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Southampton to three offences of making indecent photographs of children, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978, and one offence of possessing prohibited images of children, contrary to section 62(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. He received a suspended sentence order, which had been fully served.

Nearly five years after the time for appeal had expired, he sought leave to appeal against conviction. The single judge refused the application. On renewal, the Court of Appeal considered whether an extension of time was in the interests of justice and whether there were arguable grounds that the guilty-plea convictions were unsafe.

1. The renewed application was refused. An extension of time was unnecessary to decide the application because the proposed appeal had no arguable merit, but it would in any event have been refused. The delay of 1,834 days was extreme. The applicant’s explanations were inconsistent, unsupported and lacked cogency and credibility. He had ample opportunity to seek advice or make an application.
2. Although a conviction may be challenged after a guilty plea, the applicant bears the burden of showing that it is unsafe. As explained in R v Tredget [2022] EWCA Crim 108, an admission by a defendant who knows what he did ordinarily establishes safety. The position differs where the plea was vitiated, the proceedings were unlawful or an abuse of process, or exceptionally where the admission was false because the defendant did not commit the offence.
3. The applicant’s plea was unequivocal, voluntary and informed. He was represented by solicitors and experienced counsel, had capacity and was fit to plead. There was no credible evidence of police misconduct, pressure invalidating the plea, or any criticism of his legal representatives. His subsequent admissions to the Probation Service reinforced the conclusion that he had freely chosen to plead guilty.
4. The complaints about arrest, interview and prosecution did not show unlawfulness or abuse of process. Nor did an assertion of innocence, coupled with arguments that the prosecution evidence was insufficient or might have been answered at trial, bring the case within the exceptional false-admission category. The prosecution case was strong and none of the proposed grounds had arguable merit.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the renewed application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction: [2024] EWCA Crim 740.
• Crown Court at Southampton: The applicant pleaded guilty on 6 April 2018 and, on 27 April 2018, received a suspended sentence order totalling 12 months’ imprisonment.