The Court of Appeal has refused Stephen Walsh’s applications to extend the time for appeals against convictions in two cases, finding that the interests of justice did not justify the delays. In a third case, the court treated his appeal as having been filed in time but refused permission to add proposed grounds. Walsh may proceed on the grounds he originally filed in that case.
The judgment, delivered on 7 April 2017 by Mr Justice Edwards, dealt only with these procedural applications. The court did not decide the merits of any appeal.
In case 289/2012, Walsh had been convicted in the Central Criminal Court in December 2009 of two counts of rape and one count of oral rape. He received concurrent 10-year prison sentences. After the trial judge first refused a certificate for appeal, that refusal was set aside at Walsh’s request in July 2010. In July 2012, he asked the judge to reinstate the refusal, saying through counsel that he had changed his mind and wanted to appeal. He then missed the 21-day period to seek leave and gave no explanation for doing so. He filed an extension application and intended appeal in August 2012, but did not bring the motion before the Court of Appeal until 2016.
The court said some of Walsh’s original proposed grounds in that case were intelligible and arguable in principle. But it found he had not engaged with the trial evidence or rulings in a way that showed a possibility of injustice. It refused the extension of time.
In case 290/2012, Walsh had been convicted in November 2011 of multiple sexual offences, including offences involving children, and received prison sentences, some of which were suspended. He first indicated an intention to appeal in August 2012, well after the 21-day deadline. The court found the delay unexplained and the proposed grounds largely generic, with little connection to the trial evidence. It refused the extension. As a result, it did not need to decide whether to allow additional grounds in that case.
The third case, record 106/2011, concerned two indecent assault convictions in October 2010 and concurrent three-year sentences, consecutive to the earlier sentences. Walsh had lodged a notice of appeal before sentencing. The court treated it as a valid appeal filed in time, saying it was unnecessary to resolve the procedural question raised by filing before sentence.
The court refused Walsh’s request to add grounds to that appeal, citing the lack of specific engagement with the trial and the absence of explanations for not raising the complaints earlier. It said Walsh remained free to proceed on his original grounds.