British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >>
Denison, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 341 (06 March 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/341.html
Cite as:
[2025] EWCA Crim 341
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
|
|
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 341 |
|
|
Case No 2023/04151/B3 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT BRISTOL
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE HART) [T20210244]
|
|
Royal Courts of Justice London WC2A 2LL
|
|
|
6 March 2025 |
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE LEWIS
MR JUSTICE GOOSE
HIS HONOUR JUDGE DREW KC
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))
____________________
|
R EX
|
|
|
- v -
|
|
|
DANIEL BARRY DENISON
|
|
____________________
Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
The Applicant did not appear and was not represented
Mr A Fuller (instructed by Trading Standards) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday 6 March 2025
LORD JUSTICE LEWIS:
- There are before this court an application for an extension of time in which to file grounds of appeal against a confiscation order and an application for leave to appeal against the order. They have been referred to the full court by the Registrar. The hearing of the applications was due to take place on Tuesday 4 March 2025 but had to be adjourned as Mr Denison did not attend.
- At 2 pm this afternoon, Thursday 6 March 2025, for the first time, the applicant, Mr Denison informed the court that in fact he now wants to withdraw his applications. He needs the permission of this court to do so. The respondent local authority are prepared to allow him to withdraw his applications, but they point out that they have incurred £3,500 of costs. We have spent some time considering whether it would be right to order the applicant pay all, or at least part, of those costs.
- As a matter of principle and justice, Mr Denison ought to be ordered to pay part of those costs. The application was misconceived. Communication was sent by the Criminal Appeal Office last week explaining why it was misconceived. There is no record of a response to that and we have had no sensible explanation from the applicant today as to why it was not responded to.
- At the listing of the hearing on Tuesday, all three judges were here, having read the papers carefully. Bristol City Council had to instruct a barrister who attended court. Mr Denison did not attend. We adjourned to allow telephone calls to be made to try to find out where he was. He was contacted by phone, and we spoke to him. He said that he had applied for an adjournment. The Criminal Appeal Office has no record of an application for an adjournment being made. Mr Denison told us this afternoon that he sent an email with attachments showing his hospital appointment. He did indeed provide us, at our request, with copies of those two letters showing his hospital appointments, but not copies of any email showing that he had sent them to the Criminal Appeal Office. He said that he often deletes up to 20 or 30 emails. That may well be true, but they would still be in his deleted box.
- Accordingly, there have been two hearings at public expense, and a lot of expense has been caused to Bristol City Council. The starting point is that it would be perfectly fair and just to order Mr Denison to pay some or all of the costs that the local authority have incurred.
- There is one further matter. The applicant pointed out that he does not have a lawyer. That is true, but that was his choice. He was offered a lawyer at public expense and he decided that he did not want a lawyer as that he did not trust lawyers. That, too, has contributed to a lot of wasted time and wasted expenditure.
- It is only right that those who force public bodies to incur costs and use up scarce public resources that could be used for better purposes should pay for them. Accordingly, the starting point for this court is that Mr Denison should pay. The difficulty is this. If what Mr Denison says is true – and we have no reason at the moment to go behind it – he currently receives only welfare benefits in the form of a Personal Independence Payment ("PIP"), out of which he has to pay his rent and his utility bills. It would seem harsh for this court to take away any part of his PIP to pay the authority, even though, frankly, it is what he deserves, given the way that he has behaved.
- We investigated whether or not there is any prospect of him returning to work. He tells us that he does wish to work. However, he has a knee problem and is on a waiting list to have a knee replacement. He also has an ankle problem that will be the subject of a CT scan. The waiting list for the replacement knee is 12 months, and the expectation is that the earliest he will be able to work, if he can obtain it, will be about 14 months' time.
- In those circumstances, whilst it would be right to order the applicant pay, it would be harsh to do so because it would deprive him of his benefits. It is unfortunate that more deserving people have been deprived of these resources while the applicant has wasted the time of the court and the authority; but, regrettably, we see no way in which we can order the applicant to pay the costs.
- In those circumstances, we grant the applicant leave to withdraw his application for an extension of time and his application for leave
______________________________