Rupert Quaintance appeal to be heard today

We mentioned a few weeks ago that Angela Power-Disney was claiming that Rupert Quaintance had launched an appeal against his two convictions and sentence for Harassment 4.

We have now reliably confirmed this rumour, and have learned that Rupert’s appeal is scheduled to take place today at 10:30 a.m., before Lord Justice Holroyde, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE, and the Recorder of Maidstone (sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division):

As we noted in our last post on the matter, the appeals process involves several steps:

1. 1. The person must make an application for appeal, within 28 days of their conviction.
   2. This application comes before a tribunal of three judges, who decide whether the application has any merit.
   3. If they believe it does, an appeal hearing is granted.
   4. The appeal hearing takes place, and a decision is made: the person’s appeal is either accepted or rejected at this point.
   5a. If the hearing agrees that the sentence is disproportionate to the crime in question, then person’s sentence will be adjusted.
   5b. If the hearing is about the actual conviction, and it goes in the person’s favour, then a retrial will be granted. In Rupert’s case, the retrial would involve only the two guilty verdicts he received on 30 August.

It would appear that Rupert’s appeal is currently at the fourth step: his appeal hearing has been granted, and today the three aforementioned judges will be making the decision as to whether his conviction is sound, and if so, whether his sentence is proportionate.

If it is determined at this stage that the verdict was unsound, the case will be re-tried; and if they decide the sentence was disproportionate, it will be adjusted.

We do not yet know the particulars of Rupert’s appeal, but it seems most likely to us that his barrister will focus on a point where he and the judge differed. Rupert’s barrister stated that because Rupert’s threats and invective were directed toward a group of people, individuals within that group had no reason to feel personally threatened. Judge Griffith overruled this argument, stating that any person within the group that Rupert targetted could be expected to feel personally threatened, and that Rupert knew, or ought to have known this. As we say, we don’t know that this is the line of reasoning behind today’s appeal, but it does seem likely given the way things went during Rupert’s case.

We will continue to watch this closely, and will bring updates as soon as we get them.