Howarth, R. v

An extension of time to appeal against conviction requires good reason and, ordinarily, a risk of significant injustice if it is refused. The controlling question is whether an extension is in the interests of justice, assessed in light of the merits of the proposed appeal. An exceptionally long and unexplained delay, causing forensic prejudice, requires a compelling case on the merits. Speculative disclosure complaints and alternative theories that would not materially undermine the prosecution case do not establish a real prospect that a conviction is unsafe.

The applicant was convicted by a unanimous jury at Preston Crown Court in 2007 of conspiracy to murder and received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years. Her earlier application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2007] EWCA Crim 2928.

More than 11 years later, she sought an extension of time and renewed leave to appeal against conviction. She alleged material non-disclosure, inadequate representation, the availability of a gang-related alternative explanation for the shooting, deficiencies in CCTV and telephone evidence, and failures concerning interview evidence, severance and potential evidence from a co-accused.

The central questions were whether further disclosure directions should be made, whether any ground gave the conviction a real prospect of being found unsafe, and whether the exceptional delay should be excused in the interests of justice.

1. The application for an extension of time and renewed leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court declined to give further disclosure directions before determining leave. The applicant had previously confirmed that the application was ready for consideration, and the proposed additional material could not affect the result.

2. Applying R v Hughes [2009] EWCA Crim 841 and R v Thorsby [2015] EWCA Crim 1, an extension requires good reason and is governed by the interests of justice, including the merits of the underlying appeal. The delay of almost 11½ years was unexplained and had caused real prejudice because relevant trial lawyers and records were no longer available. R v King [2000] 2 Cr App R 391 concerned the rare and exceptional situation of an appeal bound to succeed. This application therefore required a compelling case on its merits.

3. No such case was shown. The telephone material relied upon had largely been disclosed, while the remaining business landline data was not required and was no longer available. Text-message content could not be obtained because the relevant handsets had not been recovered, including the handset disposed of by the applicant. The suggested consequences of enquiries to service providers were speculative.

4. The proposed theory that another person was the intended victim of gang violence did not create a disclosure obligation and would not exonerate the applicant. The prosecution did not have to establish the intended target. The theory was speculative, and the evidence of the applicant's telephone contacts, lies and disposal of her handset would have remained. The same considerations meant that the unavailable or low-quality CCTV evidence could not materially assist.

5. The remaining complaints were unarguable. The interview issue concerned reliability rather than admissibility. Severance was not realistically available in this conspiracy trial. The unavailable co-accused and the proposed cross-examination could not have exonerated the applicant. No arguable substantive failure by the former legal team was established. Accordingly, the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and an extension was not in the interests of justice.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, and the necessary extension of time, were dismissed: [2020] EWCA Crim 1286.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed in 2007: [2007] EWCA Crim 2928.

• Preston Crown Court: In 2007 the applicant was convicted of conspiracy to murder by a unanimous jury and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years.