Gray & Ors, R. v
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE HALLETT DBE
- MR JUSTICE SWEENEY
- MR JUSTICE WARBY
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The judgment addresses several applications for leave to appeal against convictions where applicants pursued unmeritorious appeals despite warnings that their actions could result in loss of time orders. With significant judicial resources wasted due to meritless applications, the court exercised its power under Section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to issue loss of time orders to ensure that meritorious applications could be processed promptly. Each applicant's grounds for appeal, such as improper jury directions, errors in evidence admittance, and ineffective assistance of counsel, were found unconvincing and without merit, leading to the dismissal of their applications and the issuance of loss of time orders.
J U D G M E N T
1. THE VICE PRESIDENT : These applications raise yet again the question of when it is appropriate to make a loss of time order. In R v Jerry Fortean [2009] EWCA Crim 437 , the then Vice President of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division provided useful guidance on the subject. At paragraphs 10 to 17 he observed:
"10. This court is coping, with considerable effort, with over 6,000 applications each year for leave to appeal. It is anxious to deal promptly with those which raise properly arguable grounds of appeal, whether in the end they are successful or not. It is an important feature of this jurisdiction, unlike some others, that the trial process is concluded with sentence. An appeal is not built into the trial process but must be justified on properly arguable grounds. This also means that the sentence is operative pending appeal. That reinforces the need to attend promptly to those who have appeals of arguable substance. The court's ability to do that is significantly hampered by meritless applications such as the present.
11. It is for this reason that the court has express statutory power under section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to order that part of the time spent in custody pending appeal is not to count towards the sentence: see Monnell and Morris v United Kingdom (1988) 10 EHRR 205 .
12. The applicant, like virtually every other defendant in England and Wales, was represented by independent counsel and solicitors at his trial. In this case, as in most others, that was paid for by the State's Legal Services Commission. The duty of his representatives towards him extended to providing him with skilled advice upon whether or not there existed arguable grounds of appeal, and to draft them if they existed. He must either have received advice that there were none, or have chosen not to seek it.
13. The form on which an application for leave to appeal is initially made contains a very clear printed warning in bold letters above the place for signature that if the single judge or the court is of the opinion that the application for leave is plainly without merit, an order may be made that time spent in custody as an appellant will not count towards sentence. The single judge did not make such an order, but he expressly indicated that the applicant was at risk if he pursued the application.
14. A further warning to the same effect was contained in the form by which the applicant elected to renew his application. It ter