R v Michael Stephen Brown

An applicant seeking to appeal about 10 years out of time must provide a compelling, coherent and evidenced justification for the delay. A bare assertion that the applicant was unaware of a right of appeal is insufficient. Even where an extension is refused, the court may consider the proposed grounds; leave requires an arguable basis on which the conviction could be considered unsafe. A deliberate and unambiguous guilty plea supported by a signed basis of plea is not displaced by unsupported allegations of pressure. A sentencing complaint has no arguable basis where the sentencing remarks contradict it.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Aylesbury to two counts of child cruelty and one count of assault. He was sentenced to a suspended term of six months’ imprisonment. Approximately 10 years later, he renewed an application for an extension of time of 3,665 days and for leave to appeal against conviction.

He alleged that he had been pressured into pleading guilty, that the police had caused his former partner to amend her statement, that the sentence did not accord with the basis of plea, and that the sentencing judge had failed to take account of his good character. The central questions were whether the delay was justifiable and whether any proposed ground provided an arguable basis for considering the conviction unsafe.

The renewed application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

1. Reporting restriction. The court considered section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. As the complainants had been under 18 at the material time, the court made an order preventing their identification while they remained under 18 and prohibiting publication likely to identify them.
2. Extension of time. A delay of approximately 10 years required a compelling justification. The applicant’s assertion that he had not been told that he could appeal, without further coherent and evidenced explanation, was wholly insufficient. The court agreed with the single judge that the delay was unjustifiable. The proposed grounds were considered notwithstanding the refusal of the extension.
3. Guilty plea. The plea was deliberate and unambiguous and was supported by a signed basis of plea. The unsupported allegation that the applicant had been forced to plead guilty did not identify improper pressure or narrow the scope of his free choice. There was no evidence that an incorrect Police National Computer print-out had been provided to the court, and the applicant could not disassociate himself from the signed basis of plea.
4. Remaining grounds. There was no evidence that the police had caused the former partner to amend her statement, nor any explanation of the amendment or its impact. The sentencing remarks showed that the judge had sentenced in accordance with the agreed factual basis. They also expressly recorded that the applicant was of good character and that this had been taken into account. None of the grounds raised an arguable basis on which the conviction could be considered unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused the renewed applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Aylesbury recorded the applicant’s guilty pleas and sentenced him to a suspended term of six months’ imprisonment.