R v MI
[2024] EWCA Crim 851
R v Simon Davies
18 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 471
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sex crimes against a child and appealed, claiming mental health problems and wrongful legal advice. The court rejected his appeal because there was no evidence to support his claims and his delay in appealing was unjustified. His sentence remained unchanged.
Key Facts
- •Simon Davies convicted of four counts of sexual activity with a child and one count of sexual communication with a child.
- •Sentenced to an extended sentence of 14 years (12 years custody, 2 years extended licence).
- •Appeal against conviction and sentence was made, significantly out of time.
- •Applicant claimed mental health difficulties affected his fitness to stand trial and the admissibility of his statements.
- •Applicant also challenged the admission of bad character evidence.
- •Applicant did not dispute the facts of the offences on appeal.
- •The trial judge found the applicant's behaviour was cunning and planned, not a result of illness.
Legal Principles
Anonymity provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to protect victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Rules regarding extensions of time for appealing convictions.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division procedure
Standards for assessing fitness to stand trial and the admissibility of statements made during interviews.
Common law and relevant legislation
Rules on the admissibility of bad character evidence.
Common law and relevant legislation
Sentencing Council Guideline application in cases of mental and personality disorders.
Sentencing Council Guideline
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction refused.
No arguable substance to the grounds of appeal; no evidence of unfitness to be tried, lack of criminal responsibility, or unfair treatment during interview; judge correctly admitted bad character evidence.
Appeal against sentence refused.
Trial judge properly considered psychiatric evidence and was entitled to find the applicant's behaviour was cunning and planned; sentence was consistent with guidelines.
Application for extension of time to appeal refused.
Reasons given for the delay were not credible.