R v Martin Harvey

A renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction may properly be refused where the applicant identifies no arguable ground capable of showing that the convictions are unsafe. A very substantial delay also requires a sufficient explanation, particularly where the delay has made trial materials unavailable and prevents meaningful investigation of the allegations.

Prison disciplinary adjudications do not create double jeopardy in respect of a subsequent Crown Court prosecution. Alleged missing material, complaints about prison staff or representatives, and claimed encouragement to produce offending material do not assist unless they could realistically undermine the safety of the verdict.

These were two linked renewed applications by the same applicant after a single judge had refused extensions of time, permission to appeal against conviction, and representation orders.

The first application concerned 2002 convictions at Blackfriars Crown Court for indecent assault and rape. It was brought about 20 years and nine months out of time. The available records contained neither trial papers nor transcripts.

The second concerned 2022 convictions at Snaresbrook Crown Court for five malicious communications offences and criminal damage. The application was 267 days late. The applicant challenged, among other matters, prison adjudications, alleged double jeopardy, missing material, and the conduct of prison staff and representatives.

The central issue was whether either application disclosed an arguable basis for finding the convictions unsafe and whether the delays should be extended.

1. The court refused both renewed applications. It agreed wholly with the single judge that neither application disclosed an arguable ground of appeal against conviction. The applications for extensions of time and representation orders were also refused.

2. In the 2002 case, the delay of about 20 years and nine months was very substantial and was not sufficiently explained. The passage of time meant that trial papers and transcripts were unavailable, so the applicant’s allegations could not be investigated. His representation at trial, the absence of any material casting doubt on the convictions, and the nature of the matters raised provided no basis for challenging their safety.

3. The court held that the suggested identification errors, alleged inconsistencies, absence of physical trauma, and allegation that counsel advised the applicant to lie did not provide arguable grounds. The court noted that sexual assault does not necessarily cause physical trauma and that there was no support for the allegation concerning counsel.

4. In the 2022 case, prison adjudications did not establish double jeopardy in relation to the Crown Court prosecution. The alleged missing pages and discontinuity of evidence could not conceivably render the convictions unsafe. The other complaints did not amount to grounds of appeal against convictions which pre-dated, or were unaffected by, the alleged events.

5. The first renewed application was wholly without merit. The court therefore made a loss of time order of 14 days.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for extensions of time, permission to appeal against conviction, and representation orders were refused.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: The applicant was convicted on 21 February 2022 of five malicious communications offences and one offence of criminal damage, and sentenced on 9 June 2022.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: The applicant was convicted on 7 February 2002 of indecent assault and rape, and sentenced on 21 March 2002.