Gray & Ors, R. v

Gray & Ors, R. v

Renewed applications for leave to appeal that are wholly unmeritorious, especially after express warnings, justify the exercise of the court's statutory power to make loss of time orders under section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The fact that counsel advised or supported the application does not preclude such an order. The court's ability to process meritorious cases is hampered by meritless applications, and loss of time orders are necessary to deter abuse of the appellate process.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Dean Andrew Gray; Applicant: John Robert Ridley; Applicant: Mark Junior Crawford; Applicant: Nigel James Harris; Applicant: Ashley Joseph Udu
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction And/or Sentence
Outcome
All renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and/or sentence dismissed as wholly unmeritorious. Loss of time orders made against all applicants.
Legal Topics
Loss of Time Orders, Unmeritorious Appeals, Public Interest Immunity, Disclosure Obligations, Extension of Time, Abuse of Process, Guilty Pleas, Fresh Evidence, Judicial Warnings
Criminal Law Appellate Procedure Loss of Time Orders Unmeritorious Appeals Public Interest Immunity Disclosure Obligations Extension of Time Abuse of Process +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Dean Andrew Gray

Applicant

John Robert Ridley

Applicant

Mark Junior Crawford

Applicant

Nigel James Harris

Applicant

Ashley Joseph Udu

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction And/or Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When is it appropriate to make a loss of time order under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968?
  2. 2 What are the consequences of pursuing unmeritorious renewed applications for leave to appeal?
  3. 3 What is the effect of public interest immunity applications on disclosure obligations?

Ratio Decidendi

Renewed applications for leave to appeal that are wholly unmeritorious, especially after express warnings, justify the exercise of the court's statutory power to make loss of time orders under section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The fact that counsel advised or supported the application does not preclude such an order. The court's ability to process meritorious cases is hampered by meritless applications, and loss of time orders are necessary to deter abuse of the appellate process.

Court Disposition

All renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and/or sentence dismissed as wholly unmeritorious. Loss of time orders made against all applicants.

Orders

  • Dean Andrew Gray: two months of time spent in custody as applicant not to count towards sentence
  • Mark Junior Crawford: three months loss of time order