Wilson v R (Rev 1)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE TREACY
- MR JUSTICE JAY
- MRS JUSTICE SIMLER DBE
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case addresses Gary Wilson's appeal against his life sentence for conspiracy to possess firearms and to damage property, both with the intent to endanger life. Wilson argued that incomplete legal advice led him not to seek a Newton hearing and that his life sentence was excessive. The court found the legal advice was adequate, the decision not to seek a Newton hearing was voluntary, and the life sentence with a minimum term was justified given Wilson's significant role in the conspiracy and the danger posed by his actions.
Judgment
Lord Justice Treacy :
Introduction
This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court on 9 th December 2011 to two counts of conspiracy. Count one was a conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to endanger life. Count two was a conspiracy to damage property with intent to endanger life. Henriques J sentenced the applicant at Woolwich Crown Court on 16 th March 2012 on each count concurrently to a term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of sixteen years less 482 days pursuant to the provisions of s.240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The applicant was involved with a number of other individuals who either pleaded guilty or were convicted. In their cases, applications for leave to appeal against sentences of life imprisonment with varying minimum terms were dismissed by this court on 1 st December 2012. The detail of the conspiracies and the roles of others are set out in the judgment of this Court in Riley and Others . [2012] EWCA Crim 2507
On the same day as that hearing, we adjourned the application of Gary Wilson. Mr Mansfield QC, who did not appear below, sought to raise an issue relating to the fact that Wilson, who had put forward a basis of plea, which was rejected by the Crown, had been sentenced by the Judge without a Newton hearing being held. Mr Mansfield indicated that it was Wilson’s position that he had not been properly advised about having a Newton hearing.
In granting the adjournment, I said:
“We are minded to grant the adjournment. The court has to look very carefully at applications of this sort because the court has to be alert to the possibility of improper manipulation. But having seen the contents of the letter from the solicitor previously instructed, we are dealing with a situation which is simply not the say so of the applicant, but is one which is, potentially at least, supported by the recollection of one of his professional advisors ”.
The court gave directions and there have been subsequent directions and a hearing in order to get the case in order. Very regrettably, for a number of reasons, there has been delay in the matter returning for determination by this court.
It became clear that there was a dispute between the assertions of the applicant and his then solicitor, Janine Doolan, as against the recollection of leading and junior counsel as to the relevant events. On a previous occasion, the court decided that it would cond