Ali Rostami, R. v

A renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction may be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable merit. Allegations that prosecution evidence was contradictory or unclear, that a trial should have been stopped, or that the summing-up was inadequate must identify an arguable error affecting the safety of the convictions. A court may endorse the single judge’s assessment where the grounds and reasons have been considered and no arguable basis for an appeal is shown.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to conspiracy to supply mephedrone. He was later convicted by a jury of sexual offences involving a child, causing or inciting the sexual exploitation of a child, and drug-supply offences. He received a total sentence of 21 years’ imprisonment.

He sought an extension of 26 days’ time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction and a representation order, after the single judge had refused the application. His grounds challenged the evidence concerning the complainant’s age, the refusal to stop the case, and the adequacy of the summing-up. The court also noted that the anonymity provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applied.

1. The renewed application was refused. The court agreed with the single judge that none of the seven proposed grounds of appeal against conviction had arguable merit.
2. The grounds asserted that the prosecution evidence about the complainant’s age at the relevant times was contradictory, confusing and unclear. They contended that, because most offences depended on the complainant being under 16, the trial judge should have upheld a submission of no case to answer or should have given a clearer summing-up.
3. The court considered those grounds and endorsed the single judge’s robust reasons for rejecting them. It found no arguable basis to challenge either the continuation of the trial or the summing-up.
4. The application for an extension of time, leave to appeal against conviction and a representation order therefore failed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for an extension of time, leave to appeal against conviction and a representation order refused.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: the applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply mephedrone and was later convicted by a jury of sexual and drug-supply offences; a total sentence of 21 years’ imprisonment was imposed.