Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Crim 1594
Case No: 201401590/B4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL 
 
Date: Tuesday, 22nd July 2014
 
B e f o r e:
PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVSISION 
(SIR BRIAN LEVESON) 

MR JUSTICE GLOBE 

SIR RODERICK EVANS
- - - - - - - - - - - - 
R E G I N A

v 

VINCENT HAROLD GRAHAM
- - - - - - - - - - - - 
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mr M Shrimpton appeared on behalf of the Henry's Solicitors 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 
J U D G M E N T
PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION:
1.	On 12th June 2014, this court, differently constituted, considered a Reference by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, pursuant to section 20 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, to make a summary determination whether an application for leave to appeal a confiscation order should be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.
2.	It arose in these circumstances.  On 14th June 2011 in the Crown Court at Inner London before His Honour Judge Leeming QC the applicant, Vincent Graham, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to supply controlled drugs of Class A.
3.	Some 18 months later a confiscation hearing was conducted by His Honour Judge Knowles which received comprehensive written submissions on behalf of the applicant and led to a detailed and comprehensive ruling.
4.	The application for leave to appeal on form NG was completed in the name of Henry's Solicitors 72‑74 Wellington South, Stockport, SK1 3SU.  The Reference provided was GRA/087/03.  The application for leave to appeal was signed "Mr Mark O'Connor Henry's Solicitors" after which the address is repeated.  The grounds were general and unparticularised; they did not refer to the ruling or the submissions notwithstanding the obvious care that had been put into both.  There was no suggestion that counsel instructed at the hearing had been consulted.
5.	On 12th June Mr O'Connor appeared before us, making clear that he was not a solicitor with rights of audience, that the solicitor with conduct of the case was in Stockport Magistrates' Court and that although (as we presumed) he was a legal executive, he was not in a position to consider the detailed merits of the appeal or to address the apparent absence of arguable grounds.  It was in those circumstances that we said: 
"Given the absence of the solicitors and notwithstanding that the court refused to adjourn the case when asked to do so two days ago, we are driven now to put off the hearing and we will do so on the basis that at the next occasion we do expect the solicitor with overall responsibility for the conduct of this case to appear in court in order to deal with the issues to which we have referred."
To that end Mr Kieran Henry, the Director of Henry's Solicitors, has appeared with Mr Shrimpton of counsel, to whom we are indebted.  Mr Henry recognises that the notice of appeal appears to place his firm as the instructing solicitors.  He acknowledges that he was in fact in Stockport Magistrates' Court on 12th June and further acknowledges that his firm is aware of Mr O'Connor whom he says is a self‑employed outdoor clerk, with no authority to institute proceedings in the name of the firm and with no employed status of any sort.
6.	When it was put to Mr Shrimpton that on two occasions the office of the Registrar had contacted his firm and one occasion speaking to Mr O'Connor and the other speaking to someone who at least the officer of the court understood to be the secretary of Mr O'Connor.  Mr Shrimpton repeated his instructions that although Mr O’Connor might have had access to reception at one of the offices, he had no other connection with the firm save that to which we have referred.
7.	The court has also received correspondence which purports to come from Henry's Solicitors in the form of a letter; we were told that the letterhead, which is in the name of the firm and which identifies four sub officers is old stationary and has been replaced by newer stationery.  We were alsoo told that Mr O'Connor might well have had access to the old stationery while moving into and out of the office.  The letter was a fax and the fax number from which it originates also appears to be a fax number from Henrys.
8.	We deal, first, with the Reference pursuant to section 20 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, which is to consider whether the grounds of appeal were properly formulated, whether appropriate steps had been taken to investigate the allegations made against prior solicitors and whether the appeal should be struck out in limine.  Mr Shrimpton, who does not appear for Mr Graham, has made it clear that as far as his instructions from Henry's are concerned they entirely disavow the notice of appeal.  Mr Shrimpton readily accepts that it contains no arguable ground of appeal and is properly struck out.  Although not acting for Mr Graham, that view reflects our own conclusion: the application for leave to appeal is summarily dismissed.
9.	As regards the remainder, it is a matter of great concern to the court that somebody is able to pass himself off as representing a firm of solicitors and has sufficient access to the firm to be able to use its stationery, albeit old stationery, and at least on the face of it both respond to telephone communication and use the fax.
10.	There are clearly issues of compliance and governance for the solicitors to address but in the meantime we are not in a position to get to the bottom of what has transpired and we refer the papers to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority accordingly.
11.	Mr Shrimpton, we are very grateful to you for your attendance.  We are grateful to Mr Henry for coming although we did not give him much of a choice.
12.	MR SHRIMPTON:  The issue of costs my Lord.
13.	PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION:  Do not even think about it.
14.	MR SHRIMPTON:  I will say no more.