R v Michael Stephen Brown

MRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB: The court has considered the position under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 . The complainants were under 18 at the material time and should have been protected by that statutory provision. It is not clear from the papers we have seen whether an order was made in the Crown Court and so, for the avoidance of doubt, we make the order and direct that none may be identified while they remain under 18 as victims of these offences and nothing may be published which could lead to their identification. We do not intend in any event to give the names of the complainants in this short decision.

This is a renewed application for (1) an extension of time of some 3,665 days (approximately 10 years) in which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction and (2) leave to appeal against conviction.

The applicant, who is now 39 years old, pleaded guilty on 25 July 2014 to two counts of child cruelty and one count of assault, with a fourth count ordered to lie on the file. He was sentenced on 29 August 2014 to a suspended sentence of six months' imprisonment with concurrent terms on the remaining counts.

Extension of time

The delay is extraordinary. An extension of roughly 10 years requires the applicant to demonstrate a compelling justification. He does not. The only explanation given in section 2 of the Form NG is that he was not informed he could appeal and that he has been fighting since 2016. The Criminal Appeals office sought further particulars but no further reasons were provided.

"A delay of over 10 years in seeking to appeal cannot be accepted. No sufficient explanation is given and the applicant in fact says he has been fighting for justice since 2016. It would be wholly wrong to grant the extension of time required."

Although the extension is refused, we have nevertheless considered the proposed grounds. Each lacks merit. None raises any arguable basis on which the conviction could be considered unsafe.

Ground 1: Alleged pressure to plead guilty

"The applicant in fact pleaded guilty. His claim that he was 'forced' to is baseless. His lawyers gave their advice: but the ultimate actual decision was that of the applicant himself. Further, counsel has confirmed that such advice would have been focused on the evidence, not previous convictions. He also signed the Basis of Plea that was put in. The applicant cannot now disassociate himself from his Basis of Plea."

The applicant asserts that an officer caused his then partner to amend the written statement adversely to him. As the respondent notes: "There is no evidence that the police caused the applicant's partner to amend her witness statement, nor does the applicant explain what that amendment was or what impact it had on the case against him."

"The assertions, without evidence ... are hard to follow or accept; in any event, then cannot be right, in that in these criminal proceedings the applicant was accepted to be of good character."

Ground 4: The judge failed to take account of the applicant's good character

The single judge described this part of the application as resting on a complete misapprehension of the true position. We agree. The applicant's plea was unequivocal and deliberate and the case against him was, as the respondent puts it, overwhelming. There is nothing to the suggestion that the judge failed to appreciate the applicant's previous good conduct.

Having considered the entirety of this renewed application independently for ourselves, we find no arguable basis on which this conviction, founded, as we have repeated, on a voluntary guilty plea and supported by an agreed factual basis could be considered unsafe. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time is refused and the renewed application for leave to appeal must also be refused.