R v Ardit Cela
[2024] EWCA Crim 1396
R v Michael John Lovell
30 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 802
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape. He tried to appeal much later, claiming the trial was unfair. The court looked at the evidence, said the trial was fine, and refused his appeal. Because he waited so long, they added extra time to his sentence.
Key Facts
- •Michael John Lovell (applicant) was convicted of one count of rape (count 4) on March 15, 2018.
- •He received a 15-year special custodial sentence.
- •He was acquitted of other charges, including multiple counts of rape related to the same complainant.
- •The applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal his conviction, significantly delayed.
- •The application included attempts to introduce fresh evidence concerning alleged trial irregularities (judge's statement to the jury, juror absence).
- •The fresh evidence was contradicted by trial transcripts.
- •The applicant alleged the transcripts were incomplete and manipulated, an allegation deemed untrue by the Court of Appeal.
- •The Court of Appeal found the applicant had adequate legal representation at trial.
- •The applicant's claims regarding trial irregularities were deemed implausible and untrue.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to prevent identification of victims.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Special Custodial Sentences are governed by section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Not guilty verdicts can be entered pursuant to section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
Criminal Justice Act 1967
Outcomes
The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused.
The Court found no arguable grounds for claiming the conviction was unsafe; the trial was conducted properly, the summing-up was accurate, and the jury's verdict was understandable.
The application to adduce new evidence was refused.
The evidence was deemed implausible, untrue, and contradicted by the trial transcript.
The application for an extension of time was refused.
The application lacked merit, leading to an additional 28-day sentence for the applicant.