R v John Allcock & Anor
[2023] EWCA Crim 1010
R v Philip Roe
24 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 316
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of drug smuggling years ago. He tried to appeal, but the court said the evidence against him was strong enough, even though some of it was circumstantial, and it took him too long to appeal.
Key Facts
- •Philip Roe was convicted in 2013 of six counts relating to drug smuggling and firearm possession.
- •The conviction followed a retrial and resulted in an 18-year prison sentence.
- •Roe's appeal for permission to appeal his conviction was made over 8 years after the sentencing.
- •The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence including text messages, phone calls, a palm print on a drug package, and Roe's previous involvement in tobacco smuggling.
- •A key piece of evidence involved the arrest of Guy Mitchell, an associate of Roe, on drug charges in Ireland. Mitchell was later acquitted.
- •Roe's defense argued he was unaware of the drugs and was an innocent party.
- •The appeal raised three main grounds: improper admission of evidence regarding Mitchell's arrest, failure of the legal team to call key witnesses, and the delay in bringing the appeal.
Legal Principles
Extension of time for appeal will only be granted where there is good reason and the defendant will otherwise suffer significant injustice.
R v Hughes [2009] EWCA Crim 841 at [20]
The court will grant an extension of time if it is in the interests of justice to do so, considering the justice of the case and the liberty of the individual.
R v Thorsby [2015] EWCA Crim 1
Admissibility of evidence under section 100(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Evidence is admissible if it has substantial probative value in relation to one or more matters in issue in the proceedings or is of substantial probative value in the context of the case as a whole.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the grounds of appeal unarguable. The evidence regarding Mitchell's arrest, while circumstantial, was deemed relevant and properly admitted, particularly in light of the other evidence and the defense's inconsistent explanations. The failure to call additional witnesses was not considered a material error. The delay in bringing the appeal, exceeding 8 years, also contributed to the dismissal.