Hart, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 3239 (13 December 2006)

Hart, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 3239 (13 December 2006)

Applications for leave to appeal that are wholly without merit, especially when pursued against clear negative advice from counsel or after a single judge's refusal, justify the exercise of the court's power under section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to direct that part of the time served does not count towards sentence. In the cases of Hart and Clarke, the applications were wholly without merit and loss of time orders were made. In the cases of George and Brown, while the applications lacked merit, the presence of some arguable grounds or mitigating factors meant loss of time orders were not appropriate.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 3239
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Clifford Hart; Applicant: Christabelle George; Applicant: Jason Clarke; Applicant: Darren Junior Brown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal After Refusal by Single Judge
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal refused in all four cases; loss of time orders made in two cases.
Legal Topics
Loss of Time Orders, Unmeritorious Appeals, Sentencing, Sexual Offences, Assault, Drug Offences, Theft, Practice Direction (criminal Proceedings Consolidation), Section 29 Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Criminal Law Appellate Procedure Loss of Time Orders Unmeritorious Appeals Sentencing Sexual Offences Assault Drug Offences +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Clifford Hart

Applicant

Christabelle George

Applicant

Jason Clarke

Applicant

Darren Junior Brown

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal After Refusal by Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When should the Court of Appeal exercise its power under section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to direct that time served does not count towards sentence for unmeritorious appeals?
  2. 2 Were the renewed applications for leave to appeal in each case wholly without merit?
  3. 3 Were the sentences imposed manifestly excessive or wrong in principle?

Ratio Decidendi

Applications for leave to appeal that are wholly without merit, especially when pursued against clear negative advice from counsel or after a single judge's refusal, justify the exercise of the court's power under section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to direct that part of the time served does not count towards sentence. In the cases of Hart and Clarke, the applications were wholly without merit and loss of time orders were made. In the cases of George and Brown, while the applications lacked merit, the presence of some arguable grounds or mitigating factors meant loss of time orders were not appropriate.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal refused in all four cases; loss of time orders made in two cases.

Orders

  • In Clifford Hart's and Jason Clarke's cases, 28 days of time served since conviction shall not count towards sentence under section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
  • No loss of time orders made in Christabelle George's and Darren Junior Brown's cases.