Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Published March 4, 2009
Regina v Fortean

Where an application for leave to appeal against conviction or sentence was wholly without merit, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, would exercise its power to order that part of the time spent in custody pending appeal should not count towards sentence so that applications by those who had some proper basis for making them were dealt with fully and promptly.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Lord Justice Hughes, Vice-President, Mr Justice Wyn Williams and Mr Justice Holroyde) so stated on February 20, 2009, when refusing a renewed application by Jerry Fortean for leave to appeal against his conviction on February 21, 2008, at Hove Crown Court (Judge Kemp and a jury) of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, for which he was imprisoned for four and a half years.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT said that the single judge, Mr Justice Maddison, concluding that there was no arguable ground of appeal, gave a careful, reasoned decision but the applicant nevertheless renewed his application so that it was considered by three more judges of the Court of Appeal.

The court was coping with considerable effort with more than 6,000 applications annually for leave to appeal. It was anxious to deal promptly with those which raised properly arguable grounds of appeal, whether successful or not. The court’s ability to do that was considerably hampered by meritless applications.

The court had power under section 29 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to order that part of the time spend in custody pending appeal should not count towards sentence.

The appeal application form contained a clear warning in bold letters that if the application was without merit, an order might be made that time spent as an appellant should not count towards sentence.

This case was clearly wholly lacking in merit. The court ordered that six weeks of the time spent in custody by the applicant would not count towards his sentence.

The court made it clear that that power might be exercised in any meritless appeal which should not have been pursued after due warning.

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure