[2025] EWCA Crim 1103

Fecha: 25-Jul-2025

Conclusions

Conclusion

67.

The applicant has confirmed that he abandons all previous iterations and relies upon the nine grounds of appeal submitted in January 2025. We have considered in detail and with care the evidence upon which the applicant would now wish to rely. For the reasons we have given, we conclude that the applicant's nine grounds do not give rise to any arguable grounds for an appeal against conviction, whether taken singly or in combination. We would therefore dismiss this renewed application on its merits even taking the proposed new evidence into account.

68.

However, we cannot leave this case without reference to the extreme delays that have occurred. Some, such as his solicitor's concerns about his health, the late arrival of Mr Tyrone Smith's McCook observations and his being delivered to the Old Bailey rather than RCJ on 16 May are not the applicant’s responsibility. That said, he bears responsibility for the extreme delays caused by the successive grounds that have been served on his behalf whether drafted by him or by counsel both before and since the single judge's decision. No good reason or justification for those delays or for the wholesale failure to comply with the directions of the court has been provided. We therefore refuse the necessary extension of time and dismiss this renewed application. That concludes this judgment.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith: I have not left anything out, have I, Ms Sumnall?

Ms Sumnall: My Lord, no.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith: Do we need to do anything other than what I have done, which is to say the extension of time is refused and the application is dismissed?

Ms Sumnall: My Lord, no. There is however, upon instruction given the procedural history that my Lords have outlined in this case and as disclosed by the emails that Mr McGrath sent to the Court of Appeal showing that at least three King's Counsel had told him that which the single judge has and which the court has today, these grounds were unarguable, the Crown Prosecution Service do ask me in these circumstances therefore to apply for costs limited to the disbursements in this case, it being just and reasonable given the conduct of the applicant.

Sir Nigel Davis: What disbursements do you have in mind?

Ms Sumnall: The disbursements that the Crown Prosecution Service is limited to counsels’ fees that have been obviously occasioned by having to respond, to cross-reference, go back through various iterations, find out what is new cross-reference against original evidence and so essentially limited to mine and Ms Bracken's fees. They have not included anything else.

(The court adjourned for a short time)

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith: For reasons which you will appreciate we have considerable sympathy with the Crown's position, but the answer is "No".

Ms Sumnall: Thank you, my Lord.