R v Paul Relton

An unambiguous and deliberately intended guilty plea ordinarily prevents an appeal against conviction. A challenge may nevertheless be arguable where incorrect legal advice or judicial pressure affected the plea, but contemporaneous advice and the surrounding circumstances must support it. An extension exceeding a year requires very good reasons explaining the delay and the need for so long an extension. In sentencing repeat stalking, the court may assess the totality across victims and weigh previous similar convictions, offending on bail and offending during a suspended sentence. Inadequate guideline analysis for a concurrent count does not alone make the overall sentence manifestly excessive. A restraining order may be upheld where repeat offending and victim distress justify it and statutory variation or discharge remains available.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Bristol to stalking involving serious alarm or distress and later pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Basildon to two further stalking offences. He received a total sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment and a 10-year restraining order. He sought an extension of 394 days and renewed permission to appeal conviction and sentence. The grounds concerned alleged incorrect legal advice, judicial pressure, offence categorisation, mitigation, totality, the sentencing procedure and the restraining order. The central issues were whether the guilty pleas were unsafe, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the restraining order was disproportionate.

1. Disposition and delay. The Court refused all three applications. The required extension was 394 days, exceeding one year. Such a delay required very good reasons explaining both the delay and why so lengthy an extension should be granted. The applicant’s explanation did not meet that threshold, and the substantive applications were also without merit.
2. Conviction. A defendant who has admitted facts constituting an offence by an unambiguous and deliberately intended guilty plea cannot ordinarily appeal against conviction. Incorrect legal advice or pressure from a judge may in principle provide a basis for an appeal. Here, the contemporaneous emails and trial counsel’s response showed proper advice, including that the decision to plead guilty was the applicant’s own and that harassment was available as an alternative verdict. There was no reasonably arguable basis that the pleas resulted from legal error or pressure.
3. Sentence. In relation to the stalking involving serious alarm or distress, the sentencing judge was entitled to treat the conduct as persistent and intended to maximise fear or distress. He could take the totality of the offending and both victims into account. Previous similar convictions, offending on bail and offending during the operational period of a suspended sentence were proper aggravating features. Limited mitigation did not make the sentence arguably wrong. The complaint of overcharging was immaterial because the applicant had pleaded guilty and was sentenced for the appropriate charge. The absence of fuller guideline analysis for the concurrent count did not itself make the overall sentence manifestly excessive.
4. Restraining order. In light of the repeat offending and distress caused to the victims, the 10-year restraining order was not arguably manifestly excessive. The power under Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 5(4), to vary or discharge the order provided an important safeguard. The Court was unlikely to interfere where such an application remained available when appropriate, consistently with R v Debnath [2005] EWCA Crim 3472. The Court adopted the Single Judge’s written reasons and refused the applications.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for an extension of time and permission to appeal conviction and sentence refused; [2026] EWCA Crim 328.
• Crown Court at Basildon: imposed 10 months’ imprisonment for the lead stalking offence, four months concurrently for the second offence, activated part of the earlier suspended sentence consecutively, and continued a 10-year restraining order.
• Crown Court at Bristol: imposed a suspended sentence order after the applicant pleaded guilty to stalking involving serious alarm or distress.