The Court of Appeal has refused Sean Crane’s application to extend the time for an appeal against a theft conviction, finding that he had not adequately explained a delay of more than seven years or shown an arguable appeal ground.
The application concerned a guilty plea entered in 2011 to theft contrary to section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. Mr Crane was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment on 6 October 2011. The offence was dated 18 August 2007. His application to extend the appeal deadline was dated 23 July 2017.
The court had previously refused the application in June 2018. It later emerged that a substantive affidavit sworn by Mr Crane in December 2017 had not been filed. The court allowed a motion to re-enter the matter and heard the application again in full, considering the affidavit and other filed material.
Mr Crane’s stated grounds included that he had been wrongly arrested, that there had been a bank error, that he was under duress when he pleaded guilty, and that there had been malicious misinformation and collusion. He also said the bank had apologised for an error.
The judgment records two conflicting accounts of the banking events. The prosecution evidence at the sentence hearing was that Mr Crane deposited a cheque drawn on his UK account, made two withdrawals and lacked sufficient funds to cover them. Mr Crane’s account was that an authorised overdraft facility had been withdrawn but updated instructions had not reached the bank when he sought money. The court described the accounts as irreconcilable.
Mr Crane also said his solicitor told him he had to plead guilty or risk spending 18 months in custody awaiting trial, and that he would walk free if he pleaded guilty. The court concluded that the alleged duress and the evidence he later relied on were known to him at the 2011 sentence hearing. It said receiving a transcript in 2015 did not explain the delay, because he had been present and represented at that hearing.
The court said an applicant must explain the delay, engage with the facts to show at least an arguable appeal ground, and establish that an extension would serve the interests of justice. It found no satisfactory explanation for the delay and no arguable ground with substance. A psychological report before the court did not add to the application.
The court refused the extension of time. It did not determine a conviction appeal on its merits; the application before it was for more time to bring one.