Judge says solicitors’ ‘catalogue of errors’ not excusable

A Court of Appeal judge has criticised a law firm for making an application for a time extension 234 days late.

Mrs Justice Stacey gave lead judgment in an application for leave to appeal against a sentence as well as an extension of time. The case centered on Amaru Anderson’s guilty plea for two counts of possession with intent to supply class A drugs (heroin and crack cocaine) for which he was sentenced to 67 months for each count, to be served concurrently.

The judge said the application for a time extension was ‘substantially out of time’. Anderson’s solicitors, who are not named in the judgment, said the delay was as a result of it being ‘a small firm with staff shortages, the pressure of work is immense and there is a long queue of work to be done’.

The appeal and application was sent to the wrong address by the firm and it was not until three months later that the firm ‘appreciated their error’. 

The judge added: ‘They failed to make a formal request in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules, but have now submitted a detailed letter in support setting out the basis of their application. They say it would not be fair on their client if the extension of time was refused when the fault did not lie with him.

‘There have been a catalogue of errors by the solicitors in progressing the application in a timely manner, one or two of which would be excusable, but the totality is not.’

The judge said it was ‘wrong in principle’ for the recorder at the earlier sentencing to ‘rule out the possibility of the reduction of the minimum term’ due to Anderson’s health but found he had not ‘established that the imposition of the minimum term set by parliament was unjust or the sentence manifestly excessive’.

Dismissing the application in its entirety, she said: ‘Since the grounds are not reasonably arguable, the application for an extension of time is refused, leave is refused and the application is dismissed.’

The judge acknowledged that ‘if there had been merit in the appeal’ the extension of time would have been granted ‘as it would not be in the interests of justice for an applicant to be disadvantaged by the shortcomings of his legal team’.

This article is now closed for comment.