Betty, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 734

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 734Case No 202001802/A1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Thursday 29 April 2021
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before
LORD JUSTICE BEANMRS JUSTICE FARBEY DBERECORDER OF NEWCASTLE (HIS HONOUR JUDGE SLOAN QC)(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REGINACrownV
Between
MYCKEL RICHARDO BETTY__________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)_________NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION TO REINSTATE AN ABANDONED APPEAL AGAINST SENTENE_________J U D G M E N T
[1]sentenced Myckel Betty to five-and-a-half years' detention in a young offender institution and Duvon Betty to 5 years' detention. duly lodged.[4]vice versa, Myckel signed a notice of abandonment of his application.[5]sentence and made a substantial reduction in his sentence. Myckel Betty now applies for permission to treat the notice of abandonment as a nullity.

The Criminal Procedure Rules rule 36.13(5) states that:

"(5). An [applicant] who wants to reinstate an application or appeal after abandoning it must— (a)apply in writing, with reasons; and (b). serve the application on the Registrar."
[9]the topic. The effect of the case is well summarised in the headnote which states:
"The Court has jurisdiction to give an applicant or appellant leave to withdraw a notice of abandonment of appeal or application for leave to appeal where the notice of abandonment can be treated as a nullity, ie where the abandonment was not the result of a deliberate and informed decision - in other words, where the mind of the applicant or appellant did not go with his act of abandonment. Headings such as mistake, fraud, wrong advice, misapprehension etc should be regarded only as guidelines, the presence of which may justify the exercise of such jurisdiction of the Court and are not exhaustive of the types of case where this jurisdiction can be exercised. There is no inherent jurisdiction in enabling the Court to give leave in other special circumstances."
[10]abandonment was not the result of a deliberate and informed decision".[11]case and the sentence and did not want to face another court hearing.[12]view for this court, on an application by one of two co-defendants whose cases are very similar (though, as we shall come on to point out, not identical) to take no action when this court has already decided, on a full appeal by his co-defendant, that the sentencing judge[13]made an error of principle which applies equally to both cases. sentence. We grant leave to appeal. encouraging him to do so.[16]separate Ms Stevenson and the teenager she had been fighting with.[17]arm and the left side of his chest. Myckel and Duvon Betty subsequently ran from the scene. Nathan Lockley was conveyed to hospital. after approximately 2 hours. and immaturity and imposed a sentence of 5 years.[21]categorised as category 1, that is involving both greater harm and higher culpability, the injury classified as greater harm must be injury which is serious in the context of the section 18 offence, in other words, more serious even than the level of seriousness which is[22]inherent in a conviction for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. section 91.[24]years had Myckel spent the time on remand in prison. accommodation.[26]sentence of 4 months' imprisonment for possession of a bladed article remains unaffected. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.