WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.[2021] EWCA Crim 657Case No 20201446/A4Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Tuesday 16 February 2021
Before
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDEMR JUSTICE LAVENDERMRS JUSTICE ELLENBOGEN DBE
Between
REGINACrownV
Between
DAVID MARKS__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JSTel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________The Applicant appeared in person for in person_________J U D G M E N T
[2]The Judge knew that the victim was a police informer and also knew that the victim was hijacking my accounts.[3]The Judge knew I was denied a fair trial as the police picked up my solicitor and threatened him on the first day of the trial. I was denied a solicitor and a defence." 9. applicant stated:
"The reasons why I didn't appeal was because I was told it was too late. Also this Covid virus has also delayed my appeal."
In refusing the extension of time, the single judge said as follows: 10. "I have considered the papers in your case and your grounds of appeal. 11. I refuse the lengthy extension which you require because I do not consider that there is any good reason for the delay in seeking permission to appeal against sentence. The fact that you had previously been told that you were too late is not a good reason. Nor does Covid-19 provide a good reason – an application for permission to appeal should have been made more than 2 years ago. 12. In any event, it is not arguable that the judge committed any error in sentencing you to concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment, after trial, on each of the 4 counts. Such sentence was in accordance with the applicable sentencing guidelines. None of the matters which you have raised in your grounds of appeal gives rise to an argument that your sentence was manifestly excessive or otherwise inappropriate: -. The judge was aware of your health problems: he had read the psychiatrist's report (as have I), and had seen you over a number of days at the trial. -. The allegation that the victim, Mr. Mooney, was a police informer is unsubstantiated, and (even if true) would not warrant any reduction in your sentence. -. The court log shows that you were not denied representation by virtue of the conduct of the police on the first day of the trial. The trial started on 26 February, and you were represented on that day and on subsequent days, up to the afternoon of 1 March, by counsel. You then decided to represent yourself, and were in due course found guilty by the jury. The sentence was an appropriate one irrespective of whether you were being represented or were representing yourself, and in any event I have seen nothing to indicate that your trial was unfair." We have considered all of the papers and have looked afresh at the merits of both the application for an extension of time and the proposed grounds of appeal. We have also considered carefully the submissions which the applicant made to us today, although it has to be said that they were largely concerned either with his conviction or with other irrelevant matters, including: (1) a submission that he wants to be able to cross-examine his former solicitors; (2) an allegation that the judge was a liar who had set him up; (3) the assertion that he is not a criminal; (4) complaints that he is being harassed and stalked; and (5) other complaints about the conduct of Mr Mooney. 16. find that the proposed appeal had no merit. Accordingly, we refuse this application. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk