R v Gol Ahmed Zazai

On a renewed application for leave to appeal a conviction, leave should be refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success. An extension of time should likewise be refused where the asserted inability to appeal is unsupported by medical evidence and, in any event, granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice because the proposed appeal lacks merit. Complaints about representation, interpretation, disclosure or unused evidence must be supported by identifiable material capable of affecting the safety of the conviction.

The applicant sought permission to appeal his conviction for murder following a trial at the Crown Court at Leeds before Stacey J and a jury. He had been sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years. The renewed application followed consideration by a single judge and was accompanied by an application to extend time by 127 days.

The proposed grounds concerned alleged failures in legal representation and interpretation, DNA and telephone evidence, psychiatric evidence, evidence from the deceased’s family, and disclosure. The central issues were whether any ground disclosed a realistic basis for an appeal and whether the delay should be extended in the interests of justice.

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

1. The court agreed with the single judge that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The applicant had been represented by experienced counsel and a solicitor advocate, with an interpreter. No difficulty with interpretation or representation had been apparent to the trial judge or prosecution. During five police interviews the applicant made no complaint that he could not understand or communicate, and both he and the interpreter repeatedly confirmed during the trial that they understood one another.
2. The alleged deficiencies in the evidence did not provide an arguable basis for appeal. The applicant’s defence statement gave a coherent account and raised no complaint about representation, understanding or disclosure. The prosecution case did not depend on the DNA found on the jersey covering the deceased. Telephone records and data had been disclosed and used at trial, and further data could have been relied on if the applicant wished.
3. The psychiatric report identified PTSD arising from treatment in Afghanistan, but it was unclear how that information could assist the substantive defence. The custody record showed that mental health had been considered at various stages, without significant concerns being raised. Evidence from the deceased’s family was not identified, and any confession by the deceased’s brother would not have exculpated the applicant because it could have strengthened the prosecution case on joint enterprise.
4. The disclosure complaint was wholly unparticularised. The court identified no reason to believe that disclosure had failed.
5. The 127-day delay was unsupported by medical evidence establishing that the applicant was unable to advance an appeal. In any event, because the proposed appeal had no merit, it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal the murder conviction and the application for an extension of time were refused: [2023] EWCA Crim 542.
• Single judge: The application was considered and refused on the basis that the proposed appeal had no merit.
• Crown Court at Leeds: Following trial before Stacey J and a jury, the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced on 4 April 2022 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years, less time spent on remand.