R v Osman Saeed

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, grounds must disclose an arguable basis for concluding that the conviction is unsafe. A substantial delay requires adequate explanation; medical evidence that does not account for the delay will not suffice. The court will not interfere where the trial judge properly investigated alleged juror prejudice, gave clear cross-admissibility directions, applied the correct approach to lost evidence, and correctly ruled under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.98 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.78. Alleged unfairness in the summing-up and unsafe verdicts require identifiable supporting material. The applications were refused.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook on 9 November 2019 of false imprisonment, sexual assault and common assault. On 13 March 2020 he received a total sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. He sought an extension of 1,148 days and renewed leave to appeal.

The grounds concerned alleged juror prejudice, cross-admissibility, lost forensic evidence, evidence suggesting that complainants’ drinks had been spiked, the judge’s summing-up, judicial impartiality and the safety of the convictions. The single judge refused both applications. The central issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the delay was adequately justified and whether any ground disclosed an arguable basis for concluding that the convictions were unsafe.

The court refused both the renewed application for leave to appeal and the application for an extension of time.

1. The proposed grounds disclosed no arguable basis for concluding that the convictions were unsafe. The court agreed with the single judge’s reasoning.
2. In relation to the juror’s note about having been mugged by an Asian man, the trial judge had conducted a full and proper inquiry. There was no material basis for concluding that the jury was unfairly prejudiced.
3. The cross-admissibility direction, given orally and in writing and tailored to the case, could not be faulted.
4. The refusal to stay Count 5 for loss of forensic evidence properly applied the correct approach to the facts. The jury had also received clear and robust directions about delay and the effect of the lost DNA material.
5. The trial judge’s ruling admitting evidence suggesting that drinks had been spiked correctly applied s.98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It was not arguably wrong to refuse exclusion of that evidence.
6. There was no material showing that the prosecution case had been unfairly summarised, that the judge had lacked impartiality, or that the convictions were unsafe. The applicant had identified no specific error in the summing-up.
7. The delay, amounting to about three years, lacked adequate justification. The medical evidence submitted by the applicant did not explain the delay. Leave and the extension of time were therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 27 October 2023, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal and the application for an extension of time.
• Single judge: Refused leave to appeal and an extension of time.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: The applicant was convicted on 9 November 2019 and sentenced on 13 March 2020 to a total of seven years’ imprisonment.