R v Majid Rafizadeh

A criminal appeal is not a rerun of evidence or issues canvassed at trial. Complaints about witness credibility, inconsistencies, or matters that could have been raised at trial do not justify appellate intervention unless they disclose an irregularity or error of sufficient weight and importance to render the jury’s decision unsafe. Where proposed grounds have no arguable merit, there is no point extending time to pursue them. The court refused both the extension of time and leave to appeal.

The applicant was convicted by a majority at the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne of three counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, and was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment. He renewed an application for an extension of time of 451 days and for leave to appeal his convictions, after refusal by a single judge.

His grounds concerned allegedly uncalled witnesses, inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, alleged jury prejudice, a cannabis-related incident, and sexual-health evidence. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed any error or irregularity capable of rendering the convictions unsafe.

1. The delay of 451 days was considerable. However, because the applicant had represented himself until shortly before the hearing, the court would have considered granting the extension if the grounds had any merit.

2. The complaints about witnesses who were allegedly able to contradict the complainant did not provide an arguable ground. Relevant household witnesses had given evidence, and the grounds did not clearly identify any failure by trial counsel or solicitors to call necessary witnesses. The summing-up also showed that the applicant had been properly represented and that counsel had advanced substantial points on credibility.

3. Alleged inconsistencies, assertions that the complainant had lied, the alleged effect of the applicant’s nationality, and the cannabis incident were matters for the jury to assess against the evidence. The appellate court does not reweigh such matters. Nothing suggested that the jury had been prejudiced.

4. The complaint about sexual-health evidence was unsupported. Trial counsel had taken full instructions, the solicitors had contacted the applicant’s GP, and the GP records contained no relevant evidence. The applicant had not identified the further sexual-health material at the relevant time.

5. The governing principle is that an appeal is not an opportunity to rerun evidence or issues considered at trial. The court asks only whether an irregularity or error of sufficient weight and importance occurred to render the jury’s decision unsafe. None of the grounds made the convictions even arguably unsafe. The extension of time and leave to appeal were therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the renewed application, the court refused an extension of time of 451 days and refused leave to appeal: [2024] EWCA Crim 1640.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: The applicant was convicted by a majority of three counts of rape and one count of sexual assault and sentenced to a total of 24 years’ imprisonment.