[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 >> Rovillo, R. v [2016] EWCA Crim 683 (17 May 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2016/683.html Cite as: [2016] EWCA Crim 683

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		17 May 2016

1. MR JUSTICE SOOLE: This is the applicant's renewed application for an extension of time in which to renew his application for an extension of time for his application for leave to appeal against conviction. On 7th February 2014 in the Crown Court at Canterbury he pleaded guilty to a single count of fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of cocaine, contrary to section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. His co-accused, Santo Virgadaula had a few days earlier pleaded guilty to the same offence. They were represented by the same firm of solicitors, but had separate advocates at the hearings.
2. The essential facts were that on 13th January 2014 an Italian registered lorry had been stopped at Dover, Santo Virgadaula was the driver, the applicant was in the passenger seat. When the cab was searched under the bunks were found 12 large carrier bags. They contained 63.2 kilograms of cocaine at 79 per cent purity. The retail value was estimated at over £13 million. In interview Virgadaula said he knew the packages were there and thought they may have contained drugs but was not sure. In his interview the applicant admitted helping to load the packages onto the vehicle. He thought they may have been cigarettes but conceded he later thought they may have been drugs.
3. On 6th March 2014 the applicant and Virgadaula were each sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment. On this occasion they were again represented by the same firm but with separate advocates.
4. The applicant and Virgadaula lodged appeals on sentence to this court. At the hearing of their appeals on 5th June 2014 they were jointly represented by the same counsel, Mr Leccacorvi. In each case the appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced to 10 years. The court's judgment recorded what they had said at interview, including the applicant's concession that he later thought that the loaded packages may have been drugs.
5. By Notice of Appeal dated 29th May 2015, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against conviction and an extension of time to do so. The one ground of appeal is that there had been a conflict of interest between him and Virgadaula and that in the absence of independent legal advice his conviction was unsafe. The applicant waived privilege so that his solicitors in the Crown Court could provide a response to this ground of appeal.
6. On 15th July the solicitors provided their response. They stated that each defendant had given the same account of the matter and there was no conflict; that they were assisted at all consultations and interviews by an Italian interpreter and were represented at court by separate advocates.
7. By a response dated 21st July 2015, the applicant stated that the interpreter had mis-translated the words "knowingly concerned" so as to be understood as "involved in". Virgadaula also sought leave to appeal in terms which included the same point on interpretation.
8. On 20th August 2015 the single judge refused leave on Virgadaula's application in terms that the application of both were without substance, there was no apparent conflict of interest, both had given the same account and both conceded during the police interview that they thought the packages might contain drugs. At all times there was an Italian interpreter present at the police station, the Magistrates' Court and the Crown Court. Each had received independent advice from counsel and the state of their knowledge is referred to in the decision of the Court of Appeal on sentence when they were represented by an Italian-speaking lawyer. None of these points now raised had been taken at any stage prior to 2015. He said that the applications were unarguable and totally without merit.
9. On 26th October 2015 the applicant gave notice of renewal of his application. By letter of 17th November he stated that this renewal was solely on the basis of the ground of appeal concerning the alleged mis-translation which he said had not been dealt with by the single judge in his case. On 23rd January 2016 he supplied a skeleton argument which exhibited a translation provided in another case. This gives the correct Italian for "knowingly concerned". He says there has been no appeal in that case which demonstrated the difference between the two cases.
10. In our judgment the further grounds and material put forward by the applicant provide no arguable basis for the grant of the request for extensions of time or for leave to appeal. We repeat the observations of the single judge in Virgadaula's application when he raised the same point, in particular the state of knowledge of the applicant and Virgadaula as referred to in the decision of the Court of Appeal when they were represented by an Italian-speaking lawyer. These subsequent applications are without merit and are refused.