R v Michael James Hudson

A late renewed application for leave to appeal does not require the court to disregard procedural time limits and determine the merits in every case. The court may nevertheless consider merits where appropriate.

When sentencing historic sexual offending, the judge must keep the former statutory maximum in mind and make measured reference to modern guidance. The total sentence must remain proportionate to the whole criminality. Consecutive terms for distinct victims may be appropriate where concurrent terms and discounts within individual sentences adequately reflect totality.

The enhanced release regime in section 244 ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not apply where the relevant sexual offence could not attract life imprisonment.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Leicester of ten counts of indecent assault on male children, contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The offences were committed in the 1980s while he was a canoeing instructor. They involved repeated and serious abuse of two boys, including oral and digital penetration of one victim.

On 30 September 2022, when aged 81, he received a total sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge imposed consecutive sentences of seven years and six years for two lead offences against the first victim, and a consecutive two-year sentence for offending against the second victim. The remaining terms were concurrent.

A single judge refused leave to appeal in February 2023. After a delay of 741 days, the applicant sought an extension of time, permission to amend his grounds, and renewed leave to appeal. He contended that the judge had applied modern guidance mechanistically, failed to allow sufficiently for age and ill health, and imposed a disproportionate total sentence.

Decision

1. The renewed application was refused. The court was not persuaded that there were good reasons for the 741-day delay. It nevertheless considered the proposed appeal’s merits. Since none of the proposed grounds was properly arguable, it would neither grant an extension of time nor permit amendment of the grounds or leave to appeal.
2. The observation in R v G [2024] EWCA Crim 188 did not state an authoritative general principle that the court must always consider the merits of a late application regardless of delay or excuse. Time limits remain important to the efficient administration of the court’s business. Whether to consider merits despite lateness is a matter for the court in the circumstances of the application.
3. The sentencing judge made no error of principle. He correctly kept in mind the 10-year maximum applicable at the time of the offences, correctly categorised the offending, and made measured reference to modern sentencing guidance. Multiple offences, several representing repeated abuse, required a sentence proportionate to the totality of the offending.
4. The consecutive seven- and six-year terms for the lead offences against the first victim produced 13 years to reflect the totality of offending against him. The further consecutive two-year term properly reflected the separate offending against the second victim. Substantial reductions from modern guideline starting points were built into the individual sentences, and the remaining sentences were concurrent. The total sentence was not disproportionate, even allowing for advanced age, hearing loss and other mitigation.
5. In an ancillary observation, the court identified an error in the stated release provisions. Section 244 ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not apply because life imprisonment could not have been imposed for indecent assault under section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The applicant should therefore be released after serving one half, rather than two thirds, of the sentence under section 264(6)(d) of the 2003 Act.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal and indicated that, even if time were extended, it would not permit amendment of the grounds or grant leave: [2025] EWCA Crim 724.
• Court of Appeal (single judge): Leave to appeal against sentence was refused in February 2023. The decision was communicated to the applicant in March 2023.
• Crown Court at Leicester: On 30 September 2022, the applicant was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment following conviction for ten counts of indecent assault contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.