R v Nichola Hartwell

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, leave should be refused where the proposed appeal has no good prospects and the conviction is not arguably unsafe. A short extension of time may be granted where a good reason for the delay is shown. Open justice is a key common law principle. A confidentiality order requires a sufficiently weighty risk of harm or prejudice to outweigh that principle. Limited third-party access to court-file documents may be relevant to that assessment.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Southwark on 16 January 2024 of two counts of theft contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. She received a two-year custodial sentence, suspended for 18 months. A single judge refused an extension of time and leave to appeal on 30 September 2024.

She renewed the applications, relying on alleged perjury, witness credibility issues, disclosure complaints, possible jury interference, alleged failures by her legal representatives, fresh evidence and a lack of reasonable adjustments for dyslexia. She also sought confidentiality for written submissions. The central issues were whether time should be extended, whether the material disclosed an arguable unsafe conviction, and whether confidentiality outweighed open justice.

The court refused the confidentiality application. Open justice is a key common law principle. The asserted risk of harm or prejudice was insufficient to outweigh it. The court also noted that third-party access to documents on the court file was limited under the relevant rules, principally 5.7 and 5.8, so no significant prejudice was likely to result from a third-party application.

1. The court granted a two-day extension of time because a good reason had been supplied.
2. Having read the applicant’s late 73-page document, the single judge’s reasons and the other case materials, the court concluded that the single judge had been right to refuse leave.
3. The court identified no good reason why the proposed appeal had prospects of success. It was not arguable that the convictions were unsafe.

The reasons appended to the judgment addressed the individual complaints. The email dispute and challenges to the complainant’s credibility had been heard by the jury. No material undisclosed evidence or prosecutorial misconduct was established. The juror’s reported chance encounter with the complainant disclosed no interaction or compromise. The legal representatives’ decisions were reasonable case-management judgments. The trial judge had made appropriate adjustments by allowing breaks, and the fresh dyslexia evidence did not demonstrate prejudice or a need for an intermediary. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) ([2025] EWCA Crim 1450): granted a two-day extension of time but refused confidentiality and leave to appeal.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal: on 30 September 2024 refused an extension of time and leave to appeal, finding no arguable basis that the convictions were unsafe.
• Crown Court at Southwark: convicted the applicant on 16 January 2024 of two counts of theft and sentenced her to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.