R v Muhammed Jan

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, grounds which repeat matters raised at trial will not succeed where the jury received adequate directions and the evidence made the conviction safe. Complaints about legal advice must identify the advice, explain why it was deficient, and show how it undermines the safety of the conviction. Unsupported assertions about innocence, unfairness or racial targeting carry no weight. An extension of time requires a reasonable excuse for delay. A hopeless renewed application may justify a loss of time order.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Derby, the applicant was convicted of serious sexual offences, including two rapes, and received an extended sentence of 18 years. A single judge refused leave to appeal against conviction. The applicant renewed that application and sought an extension of approximately one year and four months. His grounds concerned the sufficiency and reliability of the identification and other evidence, alleged collusion, legal advice, alleged evidence of innocence, and alleged racial targeting. The central issues were whether the convictions were arguably unsafe, whether the delay should be extended, and whether a loss of time order should be made.

The court refused both renewed applications.

1. Safety of the convictions. The evidence was overwhelming. Three of the four complainants identified the applicant, his DNA matched material recovered from one complainant, and there was supporting CCTV, body-worn footage, evidence of similarities between the attacks, and admissions in police interviews. The matters relied on in the grounds, including alleged collusion, identification weaknesses and alleged false statements, had been raised at trial and were addressed by careful jury directions. They disclosed no sustainable ground of appeal and did not make the convictions unsafe (paras 13–14, 19).
2. Legal advice and alleged further evidence. Complaints about legal advice could not assist where the applicant did not identify the advice, explain why it was poor, or show how it affected the safety of the convictions. A general assertion that evidence established innocence was unsupported and unexplained by any account of why the evidence had not been adduced at trial (paras 15–16). The complaint about advice to answer police questions with no comment also provided no basis for relief (para 17).
3. Other assertions. The allegations that the justice system was unfair or that the applicant had been racially targeted were unsupported (para 18).
4. Delay and loss of time. There was no reasonable excuse for the delay of approximately one year and four months, so the extension application was refused. Because the renewed applications were hopeless and should never have been made, the court imposed a loss of time order of 28 days (paras 19–20).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and the application for an extension of time, and made a 28-day loss of time order: [2023] EWCA Crim 164.
• Crown Court at Derby: Following trial before a judge and jury, the applicant was convicted of serious sexual offences and sentenced to an extended sentence of 18 years.
• Single judge: Refused the initial application for leave to appeal.