R v MI

On a renewed criminal appeal application, an extension of time may be refused where the proposed grounds have no merit and the sentencing judge’s approach cannot be faulted. In grave offending, the absence of previous convictions and compliance with bail may provide little mitigation. Unsubstantiated mental-health assertions do not reduce culpability. A sentencing judge may rely on trial evidence, consider victims’ accounts and refer to relevant conduct when assessing character. Complaints about trial counsel or the character of the evidence do not advance a sentence appeal where they are irrelevant or factually wrong.

On 19 August 2022, the applicant was unanimously convicted at the Crown Court at Norwich of serious sexual offences, including rape and attempted rape of children. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years.

After refusal by a single judge, the applicant renewed applications for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, leave to call a witness, and a representation order. The central issue was whether the proposed grounds disclosed a basis for permitting further appellate steps.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused the renewed application for an extension of time. It held that the proposed grounds had no merit and that the Recorder’s approach could not be faulted.

1. No pre-sentence report was necessary in the circumstances. The absence of previous convictions and compliance with bail provided little, if any, mitigation in a case involving exceptionally serious and prolonged offending.
2. Mental-health issues unsupported by medical evidence did not reduce culpability. Such issues could be treated in prison.
3. The Recorder was entitled to refer to the “cutlery incident”, having heard the trial evidence, and to regard it as illustrative of the applicant’s character. The allegation that the Recorder had spoken privately to a witness arose from a misunderstanding of the sentencing remarks and the quoted police record.
4. The sentencing remarks provided no support for the unparticularised allegation of judicial bias. The Recorder was entitled to have regard to what the victims had said.
5. Criticism of the applicant’s lawyers’ conduct of the trial was irrelevant to the proposed appeal against sentence. The assertion that the convictions rested on circumstantial evidence was also irrelevant to sentence and was factually incorrect because the victims had given direct evidence.

The application for an extension of time was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): After refusal by a single judge, the court considered the renewed applications and refused the application for an extension of time.
• Crown Court at Norwich: On 19 August 2022, the applicant was convicted unanimously before Mr Recorder Hardy and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years.