Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE CLARKE
MR JUSTICE GIBBS
MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON
R E G I N A
-v-
LESLIE MOULDEN
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
HOUSE OF LORDS PRONOUNCEMENT
Judgment
1. LORD JUSTICE CLARKE: On 27th October 2004 this court refused a renewed application by Leslie Moulden for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence and also refused an application for leave to appeal against a confiscation order which had been made against him. The reasons for the decision are contained in a judgment of the court which was delivered by Stanley Burnton J.
2. The applicant subsequently sought a certificate that a point of law of general public importance was involved in the decision and leave to appeal to the House of Lords under section 33(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The whole court, Gibbs J, Stanley Burnton J and myself, considered the application, but, by directions dated 23rd November, refused a certificate for these reasons:
"1. We have declined to grant a certificate as requested because it would serve no useful purpose.
2. It would serve no useful purpose because the House of Lords has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of 27th October 2004 refusing leave to appeal. By section 33(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 an appeal lies to the House of Lords from any decision of the Court of Appeal 'on an appeal to that court under Part 1'. It is plain from that section and from section 51(1) of the same Act that an application for leave to appeal is not 'an appeal'. This view is confirmed by the decision of this court in R v Mealey and Sheridan [1975] Crim LR 154.
3. On 27th October the court did not make a decision 'on an appeal', but simply refused leave to appeal. That is clear from paragraph 29 of the judgment, even though, as Mr Bodnar has observed, Stanley Burnton J did say, just before that, that his submissions 'were worthy of consideration in terms of time'.
4. Since the position is clear, we see no point in holding an oral hearing."
The decision was communicated to counsel for the applicant by letter dated 29th November 2004. I would only add that, so far as I am aware, no application for an oral hearing was made.