A man was convicted of stalking. He tried to appeal, saying his lawyer was bad and the judge was unfair. The court said he pleaded guilty, so the appeal was denied. They also said the sentence was fair.
Key Facts
- •James Devine (aged 48) pleaded guilty to one count of stalking involving serious alarm or distress, contrary to section 4A(1)(a)(b)(ii) and (5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
- •He was also convicted of two prior stalking offences in Aylesbury Magistrates' Court.
- •The stalking involved two complainants, Ms Swan and Ms Dent.
- •Devine continued to stalk Ms Swan after his initial conviction, contacting her via social media and making threats.
- •Devine was unrepresented at sentencing due to counsel withdrawing.
- •He applied for an extension of time to appeal conviction and sentence.
- •Devine attempted to withdraw his appeals but the court refused the withdrawal.
- •Devine raised various complaints about the conduct of the Magistrates' Court, the Crown Court and his barrister.
Legal Principles
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 4A(1)(a)(b)(ii) and (5)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Sentencing guidelines for stalking offences.
Sentencing Guidelines
Principle of totality in sentencing.
Common law sentencing principles
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction refused.
The court lacked jurisdiction to consider appeals from Magistrates' Court. The guilty plea on count 1 in the Crown Court was considered valid and not subject to appeal.
Appeal against sentence refused.
The judge's sentencing was deemed appropriate given the facts of the case, the defendant's behaviour throughout the proceedings, and the application of relevant sentencing guidelines.
Applications for extension of time refused.
No purpose would be served by granting an extension.