Deacon-Puljhun, R v

Later criticism of an investigating officer in an unrelated prosecution does not, without an arguable evidential link to the earlier case, cast doubt on the safety of an earlier conviction. An applicant must identify more than speculation that the officer acted improperly in the earlier investigation or trial. Where no arguable ground of appeal is shown, the court may refuse leave without further examining the merits of an application for an extension of time.

The applicant was convicted at Croydon Crown Court of obtaining leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by deception, contrary to Immigration Act 1971. The prosecution case was that she and her co-accused had entered a sham marriage. Each received a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.

Nearly three years later, the Crown Prosecution Service disclosed that the officer in charge of the investigation had been severely criticised by a judge in a later, separate trial involving the minister who had officiated at the marriage ceremony. The applicant sought an extension of time and renewed her application for leave to appeal against conviction after the single judge had refused it.

The central issue was whether the later criticism of the officer gave rise to an arguable basis for contending that the applicant’s conviction was unsafe.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal, and the related applications for extensions of time, were refused.
2. The court held that the prosecution case at trial had been strong. It rested on substantial circumstantial evidence, including admitted falsehoods in marriage documents, the location and circumstances of the ceremony, the couple’s prolonged separations, disputed employment claims, and significant differences in their evidence.
3. The later criticism of the investigating officer in the separate trial did not itself undermine the conviction. The applicant had shown no arguable connection between any later impropriety and the investigation or presentation of her own case. Her contention that the officer might have acted improperly to secure a conviction that could assist a later prosecution was speculative and unsupported.
4. No substantial issue concerning the officer’s credibility or any significant impropriety in this investigation had been raised at trial. The renewed grounds similarly identified no such issue, and did not reflect the allegations made in the later trial. The additional material concerning the co-accused’s mental health did not materially add to the grounds.
5. Since there was no arguable ground for challenging the safety of the conviction, no purpose would be served by further considering the merits of the requested extensions of time.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and the related applications for extensions of time.
• Single judge: Earlier refused leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Croydon: Convicted the applicant on 11 June 2013.