R v Lee Andrew Hayes

A defendant who has pleaded guilty cannot ordinarily challenge the admissibility of evidence or defects in a search warrant as grounds for an unsafe conviction. A search warrant need not bear a wet signature. The relevant requirement is that it indicate approval by the issuing court, as provided by Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 Part 47.27(3). Possession concerns knowledge and control, rather than ownership. Sentence comparison with co-defendants requires regard to differences in culpability, mitigation, role and previous convictions. A defendant sentenced by video link has an ordinary opportunity to confer with counsel before and after the hearing. The court refused an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, and refused leave to appeal against sentence because none of the proposed grounds was arguable.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Liverpool to conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice, possession of cocaine with intent to supply, and being concerned in the supply of cocaine. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, comprising a three-year-seven-month term for the possession offence and a consecutive two-year-five-month term for the conspiracy offence, with the third sentence concurrent.

He renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, and sought leave to appeal against sentence. He challenged the safety of his convictions, the validity of the search warrant, the categorisation of his role, sentence disparity, the treatment of his mental health, and the sentencing hearing conducted by video link. The central questions were whether any ground was arguable and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Conviction appeal. The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The applicant had been properly represented, had understood the pleas, and had not been pressurised into pleading guilty. The evidence provided a proper basis for the convictions. Disclosure had been addressed before trial, and the psychological evidence did not suggest that he was unfit to stand trial.
2. The court rejected the challenge to the search warrant. There was no requirement for a wet signature. Under Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 Part 47.27(3), the warrant had to include an indication that it had been approved by the issuing court. The warrant stated that it had been issued by Merseyside Magistrates Court by a Justice of the Peace following a telephone application and was signed on the justice’s direction. In any event, any defect in the warrant or its execution would not have provided a valid ground of appeal after the applicant’s guilty pleas.
3. The drug charges were correctly framed. Possession depends on knowledge and control, not ownership, and there was ample evidence of involvement in the supply of the drugs. The assessment of a significant role was supported by the quantity of cocaine, drug paraphernalia and mobile-phone evidence. It did not depend on the disputed hydraulic press or cash.
4. Sentence appeal. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. There was no arguable disparity with the co-defendants, who had different mitigation, subordinate roles, no conviction on the possession count, and, unlike the applicant, no comparable previous convictions. The consecutive sentence for the conspiracy was appropriate.
5. The applicant had been represented at sentence and had opportunities to confer with counsel. The judge had carefully considered his bipolar disorder, ADHD, emotionally unstable personality disorder, PTSD and psychological report. The total sentence was just and proportionate, and was within the range advised before sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, and leave to appeal against sentence, were refused.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: The applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 12 July 2024 to six years’ imprisonment.