Kashyap, R v

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, an appellate court will not interfere with careful evidential rulings unless an arguable error is identified. Where a defendant chooses to dismiss his representatives without good reason, does not seek replacement representation, and identifies no resulting disadvantage, the absence of newly appointed counsel gives no arguable ground of appeal. A trial judge may properly avoid repeating in the summing-up that a defendant represented himself where doing so risks damaging speculation by the jury.

A fresh-evidence ground based on a witness’s alleged recantation may be referred for further consideration where its provenance and credibility require investigation.

The applicant sought renewed leave to appeal against his Crown Court conviction for conspiracy to facilitate a breach of immigration law.

He challenged the admission of evidence from an immigration officer who had made enquiries in India, the admission of evidence of a telephone conversation, and the conduct of the trial after he dismissed his legal representatives shortly before giving evidence. He also relied on a new statement by a trial witness, Rominder Begampuri, who now alleged that material parts of his Crown Court evidence had been dishonest.

The central issues were whether any trial ruling or the applicant’s self-representation rendered the conviction arguably unsafe, and whether the proposed fresh evidence should proceed.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed on all trial-related grounds. The separate ground seeking to adduce fresh evidence was referred to the Full Court.

2. The court upheld the admission of the immigration officer’s evidence under section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The trial judge had carefully addressed the identification of the persons interviewed and whether all reasonably practicable steps had been taken to secure their attendance, in person or by video link. His conclusion was not arguably open to challenge.

3. The ruling admitting evidence of the telephone conversation with Jaswan Singh was likewise unassailable. The judge had given careful reasons, including his conclusion that calling Singh might disadvantage the defence.

4. The applicant chose to end his representation without good reason, did not request fresh counsel, and accepted that he would represent himself. Only his own evidence remained. The judge gave him time to prepare and permitted him to use notes and papers in the witness box. No specific prejudice was identified.

5. The judge was entitled not to mention the self-representation again in the summing-up. Such a direction risked prompting adverse jury speculation about why it had occurred.

6. The witness’s new statement required investigation because there was no evidence explaining how it had been obtained and its credibility was substantially in doubt. The court therefore preserved, rather than granted, that ground. It made a limited representation order and directed that amended grounds, a skeleton argument and further evidence be lodged within 28 days, subject to any extension granted by the registrar.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the renewed application, dismissed all proposed grounds challenging the conviction but referred the fresh-evidence ground to the Full Court.

• Crown Court: The applicant was convicted of conspiracy to facilitate the commission of a breach of immigration law.