Prison: Sentenced effectively increased
The Court of Appeal has rejected a prisoner’s claim that his lawyers “failed to represent him properly” after convictions for grievous bodily harm (GBH).
Sir Robin Spencer said the applications made by Kirk Daniels for time extensions to apply for leave to appeal were “so totally lacking in merit” that four weeks of the time he had spent in prison should not count towards his sentence.
Giving the unanimous ruling of the court, Sir Robin said Mr Daniels’ trial counsel “comprehensively refutes the applicant’s suggestion that he was ‘not represented at all’”.
The barrister listed conferences he had with his client before the trial, both at court and in prison, obtained “clear instructions” and “took further instructions during the trial at the start of each court day”.
Sir Robin said prosecution witnesses “were appropriately cross-examined and the applicant’s case was put”, and it was Mr Daniels’ decision not to give evidence.
“No pressure was put upon him. He refused to sign the customary endorsement presented to him by counsel. Indeed, he refused to sign any document presented to him by counsel throughout the trial.
“The applicant often commented that counsel was not acting in his best interests and was working with the government to ensure he was convicted.
“The applicant regularly said he did not wish counsel to represent him any longer but, in the best traditions of the Bar, counsel won him round and stuck to his task.”
Sir Robin did not elaborate on trial counsel’s response to claims by Mr Daniels that the barrister had “withheld and tampered with witness statements and given information to the prosecution” but said “other issues”, relating for example to DNA and fingerprints “plainly have no substance”.
Delivering judgment in R v Daniels [2024] EWCA Crim 1008, the judge said Mr Daniels made a “renewed application for a very lengthy extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction following refusal by the single judge” – the extension required was “some six and a half years”.
Mr Daniels, now 39, was convicted in April 2016 of causing GBH with intent, along with possession of a knife and attempted GBH with intent.
He was convicted later in the year of causing GBH with intent in relation to another victim and attempted GBH with intent. He was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
An appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in January 2018. His latest appeal was not lodged until April this year.
Sir Robin said: “We agree with the single judge that clearly the applicant was represented properly; indeed, some acquittals were secured.
“As the single judge said, the assertion that the applicant’s lawyers tampered with evidence or colluded with the prosecution is merely ‘unevidenced abuse’.
Mr Daniels’ other grounds of appeal were that there were “issues in relation to disclosure” and “new evidence”.
Sir Robin said the disclosure ground was “not particularised”, but trial counsel had confirmed there were no issues with disclosure.
The third ground of appeal was “cryptically expressed”, with Mr Daniels saying only that there was “important new evidence”, which required a “legal visit to myself due to sensitivity and privacy of this new vital evidence”.
Sir Robin said the new evidence was “unidentified and unspecified and cannot support an arguable ground of appeal”.
He refused the applications for extension of time and leave to appeal.
“Despite being warned of the power of the court to make a loss of time order, the applicant chose to pursue these totally unmeritorious applications which have wasted the time of the court.”
Sir Robin made a loss of time order, so that 28 days of the time Mr Daniels had served would not count towards his sentence.
Leave a Comment