R v Robert Edward O'Brien

An application to extend time to seek leave to appeal against conviction requires a sensible explanation for an extraordinary delay. Being unrepresented, or pursuing allegations of perjury with other agencies, does not by itself explain the delay. The court may also consider the merits. Where proposed grounds merely seek to re-argue the evidence and jury’s factual conclusions, and disclose no arguable basis for doubting the safety of the convictions, an extension serves no purpose. For charges under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, consent, submission, credibility and corroboration issues were matters addressed within the trial framework; no charge under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 had been laid.

The court recorded that the reporting restriction under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applied and had not been waived. The applicant was convicted at Preston Crown Court on 20 September 2018, after a jury trial, of nine counts of indecent assault and six counts of rape, and was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment on 23 November 2018.

A Single Judge refused on the papers an application for an extension of 2,023 days to seek leave to appeal against conviction. Acting in person, the applicant renewed the application before the Full Court. He raised numerous complaints concerning consent, disclosure, credibility, alleged perjury, the conduct of the trial and his former lawyers. The central questions were whether the delay was explained and whether the proposed grounds arguably cast doubt on the safety of the convictions.

1. Extension of time. The Full Court refused the application for a 2,023-day extension. The applicant gave no sensible explanation for the delay. Acting in person did not alter the position, and efforts to have alleged perjury investigated by the police, the Criminal Cases Review Commission or other agencies did not explain the failure to lodge the application in time. In the absence of an explanation, granting the extension would be contrary to the good administration of justice.
2. Merits of the proposed appeal. Although the absence of an explanation was sufficient, the court considered the merits because they could be relevant to an extension application. The proposed grounds, individually and cumulatively, disclosed no arguable basis for doubting the safety of the convictions. Many grounds sought to revisit credibility, reliability, inconsistencies, collusion, medical evidence and the factual allegations. An appeal is not an opportunity to re-argue the case tried below.
3. Consent and the charges. All counts left to the jury were charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956; no charge was brought under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Allegations described as grooming or rape by submission therefore did not establish an unlawful prosecution. The trial direction distinguishing consent from submission could not be faulted, and it was for the jury to decide whether C2 had consented.
4. Other grounds. The court found no arguable unfairness in the treatment of evidence concerning the complainants’ father, prior allegations, disclosure, medical material, alleged collusion or police impropriety. Any late medical note would not have suggested that the convictions were unsafe. Corroboration was not required for the charges, and the judge’s half-time ruling and legal directions were open to her.
5. Final order. The court made a loss-of-time direction of 28 days. It took account of the unexplained delay, the applicant’s failure to respond constructively to requests for clarification, the inability to investigate criticisms of his former lawyers because privilege had not been waived, and the lack of merit in the application. The direction was made notwithstanding that the applicant was a litigant in person.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 1098 , the Full Court refused the renewed application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction and made a 28-day loss-of-time direction.
2. Single Judge: Refused on the papers the application for an extension of 2,023 days.
3. Crown Court at Preston: Convicted the applicant after a jury trial on 20 September 2018 and sentenced him to 18 years’ imprisonment on 23 November 2018.