R v Andrew Harris

A renewed challenge to a sentence which has already been determined on appeal cannot ordinarily be reopened. The Court of Appeal is functus officio unless a ground under Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 50.27, permits reopening.

An exceptionally late application for leave to appeal against conviction may be refused where the delay lacks adequate explanation and has made fair adjudication impossible. That conclusion is particularly justified where the applicant could have raised complaints about legal representation at an earlier appeal, but the passage of time means that former representatives no longer have the material needed to answer them.

In 1996 the applicant pleaded guilty at Stafford Crown Court to two counts of indecent assault on a female under 14, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. He received six years’ imprisonment. A previous appeal against sentence succeeded and reduced the term to five years.

More than 28 years later, acting in person, he sought leave to appeal against conviction and an extension of 10,056 days. He alleged that an earlier matter had been wrongly recorded as a conviction, and that his solicitor and counsel had been incompetent in relation to the allegations and his guilty pleas. The central issues were whether a further sentence challenge could be reopened and whether the delay permitted a fair determination of the conviction complaints.

1. The application for an extension of time was refused. Its effect was that the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

2. The applicant’s complaint concerning an erroneous entry on his criminal record was, in substance, a renewed challenge to sentence. He had already successfully appealed against sentence in 1996. The Court agreed that it was therefore functus officio, and that none of the reopening grounds in rule 50.27 of the Criminal Procedure Rules appeared to apply. The Crown should ensure that the record is accurate if it has not already been corrected, but that issue did not justify reopening the sentence appeal.

3. The conviction complaints concerned events over 28 years earlier. The applicant gave no adequate explanation for failing to raise the complaints about his legal representatives when his sentence appeal was considered in 1996. His asserted discovery of an error in the criminal record did not explain that separate delay.

4. The delay had caused decisive forensic prejudice. After privilege was waived, the former solicitors and counsel could not comment because they no longer had their papers. It was consequently impossible fairly to adjudicate upon the allegations of inadequate representation. The applicant bore responsibility for that position because the complaints could have been advanced at the earlier stage.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 638, refused an extension of time; the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was therefore refused.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In 1996, allowed the applicant’s appeal against sentence and reduced the term from six to five years.
• Crown Court at Stafford: In 1996, following guilty pleas to two counts under section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, imposed six years’ imprisonment.