DM v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1187
R v Martin Harvey
19 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 83
Court of Appeal
Martin Harvey tried to appeal two sets of convictions, one from 20 years ago and one more recent. The court rejected his appeals because his reasons were weak and he waited too long to appeal the older case. He was also penalized for wasting the court's time with a weak appeal.
Key Facts
- •Martin Harvey, aged 15 at the time, was convicted in 2002 of indecent assault and rape.
- •In 2022, he was convicted of five counts of sending indecent/offensive articles and one count of criminal damage.
- •Harvey renewed applications for leave to appeal against both convictions, significantly after the events.
- •His 2002 convictions lacked available trial papers and transcripts.
- •His 2022 convictions involved letters with sexual references sent from prison and graffiti.
- •Harvey's appeals were refused by a single judge and subsequently by the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Restrictions on publishing information likely to identify victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Extension of time for appealing convictions requires sufficient explanation for the delay and arguable grounds of appeal.
Court of Appeal judgment
Prison adjudications do not provide grounds for appealing convictions, nor does it found an argument that you were subject to double jeopardy in the Crown Court.
Court of Appeal judgment
Insufficient evidence to support an appeal against conviction.
Court of Appeal judgment
Outcomes
Refusal of Harvey's application for an extension of time to appeal his 2002 convictions.
Lack of arguable grounds of appeal, insufficient explanation for the 20-year delay, and unavailability of case materials.
Refusal of Harvey's application for an extension of time to appeal his 2022 convictions.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the single judge's assessment that there were no meritorious grounds of appeal.
Imposition of a 14-day loss of time order for the 2002 appeal.
The application was deemed wholly without merit.