R v Warren Waldrom

A substantially late application to renew sentence-appeal grounds must be assessed by examining all the circumstances, including the length and explanation of the delay and the overall interests of justice. The same considerations apply to late amendments and fresh-evidence applications. A sentencing judge may treat distinct offences as separate incidents and impose consecutive sentences, provided totality is considered. An appellate court will not interfere with factual categorisation that was plainly open to the sentencing judge. Fresh psychological evidence will not assist where it does not materially address the offender’s conduct at the time or undermine the sentencing findings.

After a trial at Leicester Crown Court, the applicant was convicted of assault by penetration and rape arising from separate incidents involving a 15-year-old complainant. The sentencing judge imposed consecutive sentences totalling 12 years. A single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence on the papers, but the applicant later sought an extension of time, permission to amend the grounds and permission to adduce psychological evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The proposed grounds concerned inadmissible material, offence categorisation, totality and the absence of a psychological report. The central issues were whether the delay was justified and whether any proposed ground had arguable merit.

The court refused the extension of time to renew the sentence appeal, refused leave to amend the grounds and held that the fresh-evidence application fell as a consequence.

1. Late applications. Following the approach identified in R v Bennett [2023] EWCA Crim 795, the court considered the length of the delay, the reasons for it and the overall interests of justice. A delay of about 20 months was not justifiable, even allowing for the work undertaken by the applicant’s new legal team. The court nevertheless considered the merits before deciding the applications.
2. Sentencing grounds. There was no basis for concluding that the experienced sentencing judge had taken account of material he expressly ruled inadmissible. The judge was entitled, having heard the evidence, to find significant age disparity, vulnerability, planning and the facilitation of the offending by alcohol. The categorisation and aggravation findings were plainly open to him. Prosecution delay did not mitigate sentence where it resulted from failure to admit the offences and no unfair detrimental effect was shown. The absence of previous convictions carried very limited weight given the gravity of the sexual offending.
3. Totality. The judge was entitled to treat the offending as two separate incidents and to impose consecutive sentences while remaining alert to totality. His alternative reasoning, treating the offending as one prolonged episode, was also legitimate. The overall sentence was towards the upper end of the available range but was not arguably excessive.
4. Psychological evidence. R v James [2018] EWCA Crim 285; [2018] 1 WLR 2749 recognised that arguable grounds may emerge long after the event, although that is rare. Here, the reports did not address the applicant’s specific behaviour at the time of the offences, relied heavily on childhood diagnoses and did not identify a current recognised disorder. They did not materially undermine the findings of planned and predatory conduct or affect the inevitable length of sentence. The analysis might instead have supported dangerousness.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2025] EWCA Crim 1380: refused an extension of time to renew the sentence appeal, refused leave to amend the grounds and dismissed the fresh-evidence application as consequential.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), single judge: refused the original application for leave to appeal against sentence on the papers.
3. Crown Court at Leicester: convicted the applicant after trial and imposed consecutive sentences totalling 12 years.