The Court of Appeal has dismissed a claim by a prisoner, asserting his legal team inadequately defended him following convictions for grievous bodily harm (GBH).
Sir Robin Spencer stated that the applications by Kirk Daniels for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal were devoid of merit, resulting in a decision that four weeks of his prison time will not count towards his sentence.
Contradicting Mr. Daniels’ allegations of not being represented, his trial counsel provided evidence of frequent meetings and instructions taken throughout the trial. The defence cross-examined prosecution witnesses appropriately and presented Mr. Daniels’ case, although Mr. Daniels opted not to testify.
It was highlighted that no pressure was placed on Mr. Daniels regarding his decision not to give evidence. Notably, he refused to endorse documents or cooperate with trial counsel, claiming that the counsel acted against his interest and in conjunction with the government.
Sir Robin refrained from addressing further allegations concerning evidence tampering or collusion with prosecution, dismissing them as unsubstantial. He noted that other issues raised, such as those involving DNA and fingerprints, lacked any credible basis.
Mr. Daniels attempted a renewed application for a significant extension of time to appeal against his conviction, despite a previous refusal by a single judge. The requested extension exceeded six years since his 2016 conviction for GBH with intent.
The Court of Appeal concurred with the single judge’s finding that Mr. Daniels was adequately represented, with some charges resulting in acquittals. Assertions of evidence tampering by lawyers were deemed abusive and unevidenced.
Additional grounds for appeal cited by Mr. Daniels, including disclosure issues and alleged new evidence, were dismissed. The disclosure complaint was unsubstantiated, and the so-called new evidence lacked specifics and failed to support any valid appeal argument.
Subsequently, applications for extension and leave to appeal were denied. Consequently, a loss of time order was issued, deducting 28 days from Mr. Daniels’ served time for pursuing baseless applications.
The Court of Appeal’s decision reinforces the adequacy of legal representation received by Mr. Daniels, emphasising that his claims lacked evidence and credibility.
