R v Andrew Macdonald [2026] EWCA Crim 756
[1]An application has been received for this hearing to be in private, which we reject as no cogent reason has been given.[2]On 8 July 2022, following a trial in the Crown Court at Nottingham before His Honour Judge Sampson and a jury, the applicant was convicted of three counts of conspiracy to commit burglary (counts 2, 4 and 7), five counts of converting criminal property (counts 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12) and three counts of conspiracy to commit robbery (counts 6, 9 and 11).[3]On 15 July 2022, he was sentenced to an extended sentence of 32 years, comprising a custodial term of 27 years and an extended licence period of five years..[4]On 21 March 2023, the full court dismissed the applicant's appeal against sentence: see R Cumberpatch, Macdonald and Dilks [2023] EWCA Crim 375.[5]The applicant now renews his application for an extension of time (537 days) in which to seek leave to appeal against his conviction, following refusal by the single judge. He is unrepresented.[6]The proposed appeal does not raise any issues of wider relevance and so we keep this judgment brief.[7]The facts relating to these serious offences are well known to the applicant and are set out in the previous Court of Appeal judgment. The offending was highly sophisticated and of high value. There were threats of extreme violence and the applicant tortured one victim by cutting off part of his earlobe and threatening to cut off his thumb.[8]The proposed grounds of appeal are set out in various documents of the applicant's own composition. They are many and varied. They include complaints about the trial process; about representation by his previous legal team; judicial bias; police corruption and other matters.[9]We have given careful consideration to each of those proposed grounds, the underlying material from the trial, and information subsequently provided by the applicant's legal representatives.[10]There is no merit in any of the grounds advanced and we have no reason to doubt the safety of the applicant's conviction.[11]In refusing leave, the single judge set out comprehensive reasons for rejecting the proposed grounds of appeal. We agree with the single judge's analysis. For the same reasons we refuse the renewed application for leave to appeal against the conviction. We also refuse the renewed application for the extension of time, because extending time would be of no effect, given our decision and because we reject the applicant's assertions that he was unaware of the time limit. ____________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________