R v Martin Harvey
[2024] EWCA Crim 83
R v Joseph Ronan
4 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 815
Court of Appeal
A man pleaded guilty to assault and harassment. He later tried to get his guilty plea overturned, claiming he was wrongly advised and that there was a conspiracy against him. The court didn't believe him and refused his appeal, saying his guilty plea was clear and there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
Key Facts
- •Joseph Ronan pleaded guilty to Putting a Person in Fear of Violence by Harassment (Count 3) and Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (Count 5) on 22 April 2021.
- •He was sentenced to 64 months' imprisonment for Count 3 and a concurrent 18 months for Count 5.
- •Ronan later sought to vacate his guilty pleas but abandoned the attempt.
- •He appealed against conviction, claiming he was misled by legal representatives and that there was a conspiracy to secure his conviction.
- •The appeal included claims of disclosure failures, wrongful admission of evidence, and fresh evidence from Zoe Benjamin.
- •The single judge refused leave to appeal.
- •Ronan's appeal was based on numerous complaints against his legal team and the prosecution.
Legal Principles
A plea of guilty is an admission of guilt.
Case Law (implied)
Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 allows for the admission of fresh evidence.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Section 4(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 deals with harassment.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 deals with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Loss of time orders can be made for unmeritorious applications that waste court time.
R v Gray and others [2014] EWCA Crim 237
Outcomes
Leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
The Court found no arguable grounds of appeal. The guilty pleas were unequivocal and consistent with the applicant's admissions. Allegations of conspiracy and misconduct were unsubstantiated. The 'fresh evidence' was deemed unreliable and did not undermine the convictions.
Application for an extension of time to appeal was refused.
No good reason for the delay was given and there were no arguable grounds of appeal.
A loss of time order was made.
The application was deemed wholly without merit and wasted court time.