“The company was one of a group of companies the business of which was run by Benson and Isaacs from about mid-1965 and continued, so far as the matters alleged against them are concerned, up to March 1967. The principal business of the companies was the work of tracing missing debtors on behalf of hire purchase companies and finance companies. The method adopted by the Applicants and the employees of the company involved the impersonation of public officials, general officers of the Inland Revenue, sometimes officers of the Ministry of Pensions, Police Officers and doctors with a view to eliciting information from members of the public or from the Inland Revenue Departments. The method involved the expenditure of time and trouble on the part of the public officers and, incidentally, induced some of them to breach the rules of their employment as to confidential information. One of the ways in which the Applicants assisted their business was to obtain a number of confidential Post Office directories. Both Benson and Isaacs appear to have been equally involved. Benson was the director of only one of the companies concerned, but all major decisions seem to have been taken after consultation with him, and Isaacs was a director of the Applicant and other companies. Isaacs was first interviewed about the methods employed within the group of companies in 1965 and warned against the illegality of impersonation of other persons. Benson, in connection with these matters, used the name of Clarke, Isaacs the name of Hamilton. The volume of business done was very considerable and for their services and conduct of their business a charge was made of some 2 guineas for a successful trace of a missing debtor and half a guinea for an unsuccessful attempt.”
“… In an appropriate case the statutory time limit for commencing an appeal may be extended; but it is not an option which a convicted person may simply choose to postpone until the timing is more convenient for him. There is a strong public interest in the finality of proceedings, and good reason must be shown for any period in respect of which an applicant seeks an extension of time, and not just for the first few days or couple of weeks.”
“… The practice of the court is generally to refuse a long extension of time unless injustice would be caused by refusal. It is improbable that a long extension of time would be granted on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly when the applicant has already received competent advice to the effect that it was not. The court will be more likely closely to examine the merits of an out of time appeal when it is argued that some principle of law or legal requirement has been ignored or overlooked.”
“… a long line of authority clearly establishes that if a person was properly convicted on the law as it then stood, the court will not grant leave without it being demonstrated that a substantial injustice would otherwise be done. …”
“In Quartermain, unreported, The Times, 23 and24 October 1974 , the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal on the grounds that no miscarriage of justice had actually occurred where the defendant had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to effect a public mischief but the particulars of the offence disclosed a conspiracy to defraud by deceiving a person responsible for a public duty into doing something which he would not have done but for the deceit.”