R v Lois Christine Asha Bhagwan

A renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction will fail where the grounds do not make the convictions arguably unsafe. Allegations that extradition, custody, missing documents, judicial conduct, delay, or trial preparation caused an unfair trial require an arguable factual basis and must be assessed in the light of the legal representation, investigations, available material, and the jury directions actually given.

Where no such basis is shown, and the trial judge gave appropriate directions on delay, documentary absence, evidence, and the burden of proof, the Court of Appeal will refuse permission to appeal.

The applicant was convicted by a jury on 29 July 2021 of six counts of fraud by false representation and one count of obtaining a money transfer by deception. The prosecution alleged that she obtained investments for the purported Lionheart Project and used the money for her own purposes rather than investing it.

A single judge refused her applications for an extension of time and permission to appeal against conviction. The applicant renewed her application. Following two substantial adjournments sought because of illness, the court proceeded in the absence of further medical evidence or supporting material.

Her grounds alleged abuse of process and unfairness arising from extradition, custody and unavailable documents; prejudicial judicial conduct and deficient directions; and shortcomings in the preparation of her defence. The central issue was whether any ground made the convictions arguably unsafe.

1. The renewed applications were refused. The court was entitled to determine the application despite the applicant's illness. She had already received two substantial adjournments, had supplied no updated medical evidence or further material, and knew that the application was to be dealt with that day.

2. The abuse-of-process and fair-trial complaints were not arguable. There was no arguable flaw in the extradition process. Enquiries for the documents said to be in France had not located them, while documents from another French address had been given to the police and used at trial. Custody had not prevented the applicant from giving detailed instructions to her lawyers, who had undertaken extensive investigations.

3. The complaints about the conduct of the trial were likewise unarguable. There was no basis for concluding that any judicial comment adversely affected the defence or verdicts, or that the jury had been pressured by time. The judge correctly directed the jury on unagreed statements from unavailable witnesses, the burden of proof, delay, and the possible consequences of absent documentation for the applicant's recollection.

4. The alleged deficiencies in the defence did not show that the convictions were unsafe. Promised witnesses and documents had not materialised; the applicant had received substantial access to her legal representatives while in prison; no psychiatric report was warranted on the instructions available; and tactical decisions about evidence, including the applicant's brother's evidence, had been taken with her agreement.

5. Accordingly, none of the grounds provided an arguable basis for challenging the safety of the convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the renewed applications for an extension of time and permission to appeal against conviction: [2023] EWCA Crim 577.

• Single judge: Applications for permission to appeal against conviction and for a 23-day extension of time were refused.

• Trial: The applicant was convicted by a jury on 29 July 2021 of six counts of fraud by false representation and one count of obtaining a money transfer by deception.