I will deliver the decision in this matter.
1.
This case has been referred to us in the normal manner and we heard from both Mr. Di Stefano who appeared for the Appellant and Mr. Penner KC who appeared for the Crown.
2.
This Application stems from a decision made by the COA Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWCA Crim 702 dated the 18th of February 2020.
3.
The facts can be summarised as follows:
On the 30th of March 1987, in the Central Criminal Court before His Honour Judge Lymbery QC the Applicant pleaded guilty to the following offences on two Indictments:
On the first Indictment, to a single account of escape from lawful custody, the offence having been committed on the 20th of November 1984; and, the second Indictment, to robbery (Count1) and to possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life (Count 2), those offences having been committed on the 11th of June 1986.
4.
This Court is only concerned with the plea of guilty to the single Count of escape from lawful custody.
5.
Mr. Di Stefano made clear to us that this was a fundamental case of what can only be described as an “Americanised plea bargain” and that under no circumstances was the Appellant guilty of escape de jure. He would make submissions to this effect throughout the hearing.
1.
This matter has been referred to us by a retired High Court Judge in accordance with the criteria and mandate afforded to us when reviewing cases that are considered to be potentially a miscarriage of justice, and troubling to the judiciary who participated in the trial and or appeal.
2.
The Appellant requires an appeal and scrutiny on conviction, sentence, and confiscation.
3.
The Appellant appeared before us and presented the case in an extremely interesting manner. Mr. D. Mendacitie QC was offered the opportunity to respond but declined to do so in a manner commensurate to his namesake, this Court pressed Mr. Mendacitie QC but fortunately he remained silent.
4.
The Appellant raised an interesting matter of law before dealing with the main issues and I ask my Lord Datta to summarise.
5.
The Appellant raised an issue of Constitutional Compatibility, in short, the Appellant stated that all criminal trials and appeals with the title Regina/Rex -v- (named person) a nullity.
R -v- AL-MEGRAHI – LIVE HEARING
R -v- JEREMY BAMBER
R -v- CARL MORGAN
R -v- MARK OSBORNE
THE PEOPLE -v- GHISLAINE MAXWELL
