R v Nathan Rochester

In a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, leave should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable point and there is no basis to doubt the safety of the convictions. An extension of time should likewise be refused where the proposed appeal has no prospects of success. A trial may proceed in a defendant’s absence where the trial judge has considered the relevant factors and concludes that continuation is appropriate, including where the defendant has disrupted proceedings and declined an opportunity to return. Allegations of bias, police misconduct, juror irregularity, inadequate representation, undisclosed material or potential expert evidence must disclose an arguable basis before they can justify appellate intervention.

The applicant was convicted by a jury at the Crown Court at Nottingham of false imprisonment and causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. After dismissing his counsel and declining to participate, he was tried in his absence. A single judge refused leave to appeal. The applicant renewed his application and sought a 43-day extension of time, alleging defects in the evidence, disclosure, representation, judicial conduct, jury composition and the decision to continue in his absence. The central issue was whether any proposed ground was arguable or cast doubt on the safety of the convictions.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused the renewed application for leave to appeal and the application for an extension of time.

1. The court considered the Criminal Appeal Office Summary, the Respondent’s Notice and the single judge’s decision. It concluded beyond doubt that there were no arguable grounds of appeal and no basis to doubt the safety of either conviction.
2. The trial judge’s decision to continue the trial in the applicant’s absence was plainly correct. The judge had considered the relevant factors under established case law and was entitled to conclude that the applicant’s conduct, whether deliberate or otherwise, was disruptive. The applicant had dismissed his counsel and indicated that he would not participate. After the prosecution case, he was given an opportunity to return, hear the evidence of his co-defendants and give evidence himself, but declined it.
3. The directions given to the jury that the applicant’s absence was not evidence against him and must not affect their judgment were appropriate and conventional. They provided an important safeguard for a trial conducted in his absence.
4. There was no basis for the allegations of judicial bias or impropriety, police misconduct, juror irregularity, or inadequate or incompetent legal representation. The relevant material had been provided, as confirmed by counsel. The references to mobile-phone use and possible expert evidence did not provide a coherent or arguable basis for challenging the convictions.
5. The proposed appeal had no prospects of success and was totally without merit. Granting the 43-day extension would serve no purpose and was therefore refused.

• Crown Court at Nottingham: On 10 June 2024, the applicant was convicted by a jury of false imprisonment and causing grievous bodily harm with intent and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.
• Single judge: The application for leave to appeal was refused.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave and the application for a 43-day extension of time were refused.