R v Gary Robinson

On a delayed application to renew an application for leave to appeal against conviction, the Court of Appeal must focus on whether the convictions under challenge are unsafe. Complaints and evidence relating only to acquitted counts cannot establish that the convictions are unsafe. Where the defendant’s account of motivation and mental distress was placed before the jury, further hearsay evidence repeating that account may add nothing. An extension of time may be refused where the delay is substantial and inadequately explained, the explanation is unsupported, and the proposed grounds disclose no arguable basis for concluding that the convictions are unsafe.

The applicant was convicted at Bournemouth Crown Court of criminal damage and two counts of witness intimidation. He had been acquitted of rape and assault by penetration and was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. Acting in person, he applied for leave to appeal against conviction 119 days out of time. A single judge refused an extension of time, finding the explanation uncorroborated and the proposed grounds lacking merit. The applicant did not renew that application within the required period and later sought to renew it more than ten months out of time. He relied on mental health difficulties, alleged new evidence and disclosure failures, police conduct, and inadequate representation. The central issues were whether the further delay should be permitted and whether any proposed ground disclosed an arguable basis for finding the convictions unsafe.

Application refused. The applicant’s renewal application was more than ten months late and concerned an original application for leave lodged 119 days out of time.

1. The court confined its consideration to the convictions for which leave was sought: criminal damage and witness intimidation. Complaints concerning the rape and assault charges, on which the applicant had been acquitted, could not establish that the convictions under challenge were unsafe. The court’s jurisdiction did not extend to investigating the applicant’s wider complaints to the police or the IOPC.
2. The essential facts relating to the convictions were not materially disputed. The applicant accepted attending the site, breaking the complainant’s window, shouting insults and later posting details about her and the allegations on Facebook. His case that he had been motivated by a desire to expose malpractice or take his own life, rather than intimidate the complainant or deter her from pursuing the allegations, was fully before the jury.
3. The jury had been correctly directed that, for criminal damage, it had to be sure that the applicant deliberately damaged the window. For witness intimidation, it had to be sure that the complainant was intimidated, that the applicant intended to intimidate her, and that he intended the intimidation to put her off pursuing the allegations. No issue could properly be taken with those directions. Potential hearsay evidence from the police negotiator would merely have repeated what the applicant had said and would not have advanced the case.
4. The allegation that leading counsel had colluded with the prosecution was baseless. After privilege was waived, counsel’s response showed that appropriate advice had been given, and the applicant’s case had been fully put before the jury. The alleged undisclosed material either related only to the acquitted counts or raised an issue that remained for the jury on the evidence at trial.
5. In deciding whether to extend time, the court considered the length and explanation of the delays and the potential merits of the proposed appeal. The mental-health explanation for the first delay was unsupported by medical evidence. No adequate explanation was given for the later delay. In any event, no arguable ground had been identified and nothing suggested that the convictions were unsafe. The application was therefore refused.

• Crown Court at Bournemouth: On 24 January 2023, the applicant was convicted of criminal damage and two counts of witness intimidation, acquitted of rape and assault by penetration, and sentenced to an overall term of eight months.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal: The applicant’s application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal was refused. The explanation for the 119-day delay was uncorroborated, and the proposed grounds disclosed no arguable basis for finding the convictions unsafe. The order was sent on 26 January 2024, but no renewal was made within 14 days.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The application to extend time to renew the application for leave to appeal was refused on 15 May 2025.