R v Liaqat Hayat

When an applicant seeks a substantial extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction, the court considers both the merits and the delay. An extension is unjustified where the proposed grounds have no reasonable prospect of showing that the conviction is unsafe. Difficulties obtaining legal advice in custody or navigating the system in a second language may justify some extension, but not an excessive period. A guilty plea provides no arguable basis for appeal where contemporaneous evidence shows that counsel advised properly and the plea was unequivocal and freely made after the applicant understood the sentencing indication.

The applicant renewed his applications for an extension of 1,126 days and for leave to appeal against conviction. He had pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Leeds to harassment and four common assaults and received a total sentence of 58 weeks’ imprisonment. He challenged the legal advice which led to his guilty pleas and explained the delay by reference to continued immigration detention and difficulty obtaining assistance. A single judge refused leave. The central issues were whether the proposed appeal had any realistic prospect of showing that the convictions were unsafe and whether the delay justified an extension of time.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and the application for an extension of time were both refused.
2. The applicant’s proposed grounds challenged the advice which led him to change his pleas to guilty. His counsel’s contemporaneous records showed that she was prepared for trial, explained the prosecution offer and its consequences, used an interpreter, and obtained detailed instructions. The applicant signed documents confirming that he freely requested a Goodyear indication and that his guilty plea was unequivocal and voluntary. The court agreed with and adopted the single judge’s reasoning. There were no arguable grounds with a reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the convictions were unsafe.
3. In deciding the extension application, the court applied the overriding objective in Criminal Procedure Rules Rule 1.1 and considered the interests of justice. The applicant’s continued detention and difficulty obtaining legal advice, together with the fact that English was not his first language, were capable of explaining some delay. They did not justify the excessive delay of 1,126 days. The reasons were unsatisfactory and could, at most, have supported a short extension.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2023] EWCA Crim 1707: refused both the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and the application for an extension of time.
• Single judge — refused leave to appeal, finding that the applicant had been properly advised and had entered an unequivocal guilty plea after receiving a Goodyear indication.
• Crown Court at Leeds — the applicant pleaded guilty to harassment and four common assaults and was sentenced to a total of 58 weeks’ imprisonment.