Nur v R

An appellant seeking to renew an application refused by a single judge must comply with Criminal Appeal Rules 1968, rule 12. The notice must be served on the Registrar within the prescribed period or any judicially extended period. A notice lodged in prison but never delivered to the Registrar is ineffective.

When considering an extension of time, the court assesses the length of delay, the reasons for it and the merits of the proposed appeal. Compelling merits may justify a more generous approach. However, a person who knows that time limits apply cannot reasonably justify years of delay by preparing an elaborate application.

The applicant had been convicted of murder at the Central Criminal Court following a trial lasting over two months. His application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused by a single judge in March 1997.

He maintained that he had lodged a notice renewing that application at prison within 14 days, but the Criminal Appeals Office never received it. In April 2002, nearly five years after the refusal, he submitted a fresh and extensive application seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal.

The central issues were whether the original renewal was effective under Criminal Appeal Rules 1968, rule 12, whether the prolonged delay was excusable, and whether the proposed appeal had arguable merit.

1. The renewed application for an extension of time was refused. The court found as a fact that no notice renewing the original application reached the Criminal Appeals Office. It nevertheless assumed in the applicant’s favour that he had lodged a form at prison and that the prison had failed to deliver it.

2. That assumption did not assist the applicant. Under rule 12 of the Criminal Appeal Rules 1968, a renewal notice had to be served on the Registrar within 14 days, unless a judge fixed a longer period. A document lodged in prison but never delivered to the Registrar was therefore ineffective. The original application had consequently been treated as refused.

3. The delay from about October 1997 to April 2002 was fatal. The applicant knew that the court had not received the renewal notice and knew that a further application was required. His decision to spend about four and a half years preparing a lengthy new application was not an acceptable or reasonable explanation for disregarding the applicable time limits.

4. The court also considered the merits. The available material showed that the trial judge had fairly left the identification evidence and the applicant’s alibi to the jury. The defence had been assisted by an annotated schedule recording the identification evidence. There was no basis for a conclusion that the verdict created a lurking doubt. No proper application or witness form identified fresh evidence, and the challenge to the additional count of violent disorder had no merit.

5. Accordingly, even if the delay had been overlooked, the proposed appeal would have had no arguable prospect of success.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In Nur v R, [2003] EWCA Crim 1843, the court refused the renewed application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction.

• Central Criminal Court — Following a trial before HHJ Pownall QC, the applicant was convicted of murder on 20 May 1996.