R v Henderson Domingo
[2024] EWCA Crim 587
R v Wesley Kevin Davison
30 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 484
Court of Appeal
A man appealed his conviction and sentence for attempted robbery. The court reviewed his complaints about his lawyer, the trial, and his sentence, and found no mistakes were made. His appeal was denied.
Key Facts
- •Wesley Kevin Davison convicted of attempted robbery on 8 October 2021 at Guildford Crown Court.
- •Sentenced to four years' imprisonment consecutive to existing sentence on 3 March 2022.
- •Incident involved attempted robbery at a Surrey hotel on 12 February 2019.
- •Davison's DNA found on a hat left at the scene.
- •Davison claimed he was in the hotel to use the lavatory, mistakenly entering the office.
- •Conflicting statements from victim Hannah Scammell regarding the nature of the assault.
- •Davison's appeal raised issues of inadequate legal representation, prejudicial jury information, and sentencing.
- •Davison claimed his lawyers failed to call an expert witness and that his barrister was drunk.
- •Davison claimed the jury was told of his imprisonment and that his bowel complications were not considered by the judge.
- •Davison claimed the judge's summing-up favored the prosecution.
- •Davison claimed one juror was from a previous case and that there were disclosure failures by the prosecution.
Legal Principles
Standard of review for appeals against conviction and sentence.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division
Assessment of whether a pre-sentence report is required.
Sentencing Guidelines
Considerations for sentencing in attempted robbery cases.
Sentencing Guidelines
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction refused.
Court found no arguable grounds of appeal. Allegations of inadequate legal representation, prejudicial jury information and other issues raised by the applicant were deemed unsubstantiated.
Appeal against sentence refused.
Court found the sentence of four years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offence, Davison's extensive criminal record, and lack of need for a pre-sentence report.
Application for extension of time refused.
Given the lack of arguable grounds for appeal, extending the time limit was unnecessary.