R v Thomas Stuart Lewis

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal conviction by the applicant, Thomas Lewis, whose application is out of time by 77 days. We are asked to extend time to permit the applicant to pursue his appeal. Leave to appeal and to extend time were both refused by the single judge.

On 3 March 2023 the applicant appeared at the Crown Court in Southampton at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing, ("PTPH") for an offence of Stalking Causing Substantial, Adverse Effect on the Usual Day-to-Day Activities, contrary to section 4A (1)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He pleaded not guilty and the trial was listed on 14 August 2023. On that date, before His Honour Judge Forster KC, the applicant pleaded guilty to the lesser alternative offence of Stalking, contrary to section 2A of the 1997 Act, which plea was accepted by the prosecution. The applicant provided a typed and signed basis of plea, in which he sought to explain or qualify his behaviour which did not amount to a defence.

On 16 October 2023 the applicant was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 18 months with a requirement he complete 30 days of rehabilitation activity. He was also made the subject of a Restraining Order for five years.

The applicant now seeks to renew his application, and has provided his grounds, together with his reasons for delay, to within the Form NG (Easy Read) document. He has completed eight boxes of the Form which can be summarised in the following way:- first, he did not have the opportunity to explain himself or give support to any information, and had made numerous reports to the police against the complainant himself which were ignored; secondly, his reasons for delay were to do with him trying to obtain legal advice and gather evidence; thirdly, the applicant was encouraged to plead guilty by his solicitor and counsel; fourthly, the mother of the applicant's child had been working with the complainant against the applicant; fifthly, complaints against his legal representatives that he was not shown the evidence in the case; sixthly, the paperwork about conviction was wrong because the applicant pleaded to a lesser offence; seventhly, there is material on the applicant's phone which would have assisted his case; eighthly, the applicant was treated unfairly or unlawfully treated by the police during arrest.

The applicant's solicitors and counsel were given the opportunity to provide their responses to the applicant's grounds, after he had waived privilege. It is clear from what they say that the applicant was not put under any inappropriate pressure to plead guilty; that he himself expressed a wish to do so and freely signed the basis of plea and entered his guilty plea before the court.

For the purposes of this judgment, it is unnecessary for us to set out either in detail or briefly the facts of the offence, given that the application to appeal conviction is based on his own guilty plea. In refusing leave to appeal conviction, the single judge carefully considered each ground on the applicant's document, and concluded that there were no arguable grounds that the conviction was unsafe.

We have considered for ourselves the grounds of appeal and find we are in agreement with the single judge. This application is based on the simple fact that the applicant entered a guilty plea voluntarily, as evidenced by his signed basis of plea and his willingness to plead guilty to a lesser offence. There are no arguable grounds raised by the applicant to suggest that the conviction based upon his plea were unsafe.

Accordingly, we refuse the application to extend time, there being no merit in the appeal and we refuse the renewed application to appeal.

Before parting with this case we have been asked by the Court of Appeal Office to correct the court record to show that the conviction was for an offence of Stalking, contrary to section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and not that which is currently recorded. We make that correction.