A MAN who tried to appeal against convictions for rape and indecent assault more than three years after the 28-day appeal deadline had passed has been denied permission to try to overturn his convictions.
The man – whose name has been redacted in the court’s written judgment – was jailed and put on the Sex Offenders Register.
Sitting as a single judge in the Court of Appeal, Commissioner Sir William Bailhache said that the applicant had provided no satisfactory explanation for failing to enter a notice of appeal on a timely basis and had provided grounds for appeal which showed ‘no seriously arguable case, yet alone establish[ed] a good prospect of success’.
Sir William noted that the applicant had complained about delays in providing him with his legal paperwork and in securing information from the States of Jersey Police, in addition to the fact that he was unrepresented and been refused legal aid.
However, Sir William found that the defence advocate in the original trial, Advocate Adam Harrison, had previously given advice that an appeal had no likely grounds of success, although the advocate also made it clear that his client could still pursue an appeal himself but had to lodge notice within the prescribed period.
Reviewing the applicant’s reasons for appeal, the Commissioner rejected a complaint against the advocate that he had put pressure on his client to plead guilty. The defendant opted to plead not guilty.
In his judgment, Sir William said: ‘I have no doubt that in the circumstances which existed at the time, Advocate Harrison was entitled to reach the view that a not-guilty plea would be unlikely to be successful and if so, he would be acting entirely in accordance with his duty to advise the applicant that this was his view of the evidence because, if that view were correct and was nonetheless disregarded, the applicant would suffer considerably by the loss of the mitigating factor of a guilty plea on sentence.
‘In his affidavit to us, Advocate Harrison has confirmed that he did advise the applicant to plead guilty. In the absence of any affirmative case which the applicant was able to put forward, that was, in Advocate Harrison’s view, the right advice to give. We do not consider there is any legitimate criticism of Advocate Harrison to be brought in that respect,’ Sir William said, dismissing the appeal.
