The Court considered a renewed application for leave to appeal which the Registrar had considered to be without merit and was referred under section 20 of the 1968 Act.
Held: The reference had been properly made. The application for extension of time waas frivolous and vexatious and contained serious non-disclosure.
As to ath eallegation of incompetence in trial counsel: ‘As in this case, many such cases proceed without any enquiry being made of solicitors and counsel who acted at trial. That means that the lawyer who brings such an application acts on what is, ex hypothesi, the allegations of a convicted criminal – and in this case a convicted paedophile. For a lawyer to put forward such allegations based purely on such a statement, and without enquiry, is in our view impermissible. Before applications are made to this court alleging incompetent representation which is based upon an account given by a convicted criminal, we expect lawyers to take proper steps to ascertain by independent means, including contacting the previous lawyers, as to whether there is any objective and independent basis for the grounds of appeal.’
Things had now moved on after Doherty, and ‘counsel and solicitors would be failing in their duty to this court if they did not make enquiries which would provide an objective and independent basis, other than complaints made by the convicted criminal, as to what had happened.’
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd) CJ, Royce J, His Honour Judge Tonking
[2014] WLR(D) 137, [2014] EWCA Crim 567
WLRD, Bailii
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 20
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Doherty and McGregor CACD 1997
Fresh counsel instructed by McGregor on appeal alleged incompetence on the part of trial counsel.
Held: Where a fresh advocate is instructed to advance an application for leave to appeal based on the conduct of the trial, s/he should consider . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski CACD 1975
The defendant appealed against his conviction for assault saying that he was so intoxicated on drink and drugs at the time that he did not have mens rea.
Held: The appeal failed. The court certified a question for the House of Lords namely: . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski HL 1976
The defendant took a cocktail of drink and drugs and, whilst intoxicated, assaulted pub landlord. He said that he did not know what he was doing, and had no mens rea, that self-induced intoxication could be a defence to a charge of assault, and that . .
Cited – Regina v Taylor 1997
. .
Cited – Regina v Davis and Thabangu CACD 5-Dec-2013
The court exercised its rights under section 20 to penalise solicitors pursuing vexatious appeals. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523747