R v Paul Michael Reed
[2024] EWCA Crim 1222
R v John Edwin Charles Taylor
3 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1206
Court of Appeal
A man tried to appeal his conviction and sentence for breaking a court order that prevented him from harming his wife. He claimed his lawyers misled him, and he had mental health problems. The court didn't believe him, found his reasons for appealing weak, and made him pay for the court documents.
Key Facts
- •Applicant pleaded guilty to breaching a non-molestation order on 20 November 2020.
- •Applicant was acquitted of attempted murder on 3 June 2021.
- •Applicant sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment for breaching the non-molestation order.
- •Restraining order was varied on 10 July 2023 to expand the exclusion zone.
- •Applicant applied for extensions of time to appeal conviction and sentence, claiming he was misinformed by solicitors and probation service.
- •Applicant's appeal alleges misrepresentation by legal representatives, lack of intent to harm, lack of order documentation, mental health issues, and hearing difficulties during court proceedings.
- •Applicant's grounds for appealing sentence include it being his first offence, the non-molestation order not being legally issued, and mental health issues.
- •A waiver of privilege was sought and provided, including the applicant's proof of evidence.
- •The prosecution confirmed the non-molestation order was served on the applicant.
Legal Principles
Extensions of time for appeals are granted only if there is good reason and the appeal is arguable.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division
Section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 allows for cost orders against applicants whose appeals are wholly without merit.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
Outcomes
Applications for extensions of time to appeal conviction and sentence were refused.
The applicant's claims of being misinformed were unsubstantiated, and the grounds of appeal were deemed hopeless and not arguable. The single judge's reasoning was upheld.
Cost order of £84.84 was made against the applicant for the cost of transcripts.
The appeals were deemed wholly without merit.