R v Ajaypal Singh

A jury direction on omissions in interview and in a defence statement is sufficient if it conveys the essential safeguards, including that any adverse inference must be fair and proper and cannot be the sole or main basis for conviction. A judge need not use the exact wording of the Crown Court Compendium.

Fresh evidence may be refused under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 section 23 where there is no reasonable explanation for failing to adduce it at trial. Following refusal by a single judge, substantially fresh grounds require compelling reasons in the interests of justice; a change of legal representatives does not itself suffice.

The applicant was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of robbery arising from an armed and organised invasion of a family home. He received an extended sentence of 25 years, comprising a 20-year custodial term and a five-year extension period, consecutive to sentences for drugs and bladed-article offences.

He sought extensions of time and renewed permission to appeal conviction and sentence. His proposed conviction grounds concerned adverse-inference directions, the summing-up, alleged non-disclosure of cell-site data, and proposed fresh evidence from a co-offender. He also sought disclosure from that co-offender’s former solicitors. The central issue was whether any ground afforded an arguable basis for doubting the safety of the conviction or challenging the sentence.

1. All applications were refused. None of the proposed grounds gave an arguable basis for doubting the safety of the conviction. There was likewise no arguable challenge to the sentence.

2. The applicant had not been denied a fair opportunity to explain the omission of an alleged personal telephone number from his defence statement. He first raised that number in re-examination, after cross-examination had concluded, and could then have explained the earlier omission. The prosecution was not required to reopen cross-examination so as to give him that opportunity.

3. The direction under Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 section 39 was sufficient. It would have assisted the jury to address separately omissions in interview and omissions from the defence statement. However, the judge covered the essential safeguards, including the need to consider the applicant’s explanations and to be sure that drawing an inference was fair and proper. The jury also had the agreed facts concerning the prepared statement and the disclosure available at interview.

4. The cell-site material had been disclosed before trial. If it required clarification, the applicant’s representatives could have sought it. It was too late to pursue as a post-conviction complaint a line of inquiry that was available at trial. The proposed evidence from Sargeant was also refused under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 section 23: trial counsel had actively considered and reasonably rejected calling him, and his later statement was unsatisfactory.

5. The 20-year custodial term was severe but not arguably manifestly excessive. The robbery involved planned, armed violence, serious harm to a family including children, and the applicant’s leading role. Those circumstances also supported the finding of dangerousness and the extended sentence.

6. Applying R v James [2018] EWCA Crim 285, the court stressed that an applicant cannot bypass the single-judge stage by recasting grounds because new lawyers would advance them differently. Substantially fresh grounds require compelling reasons in the interests of justice, which were absent here.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused the renewed applications for permission to appeal conviction and sentence, and associated applications: [2024] EWCA Crim 320.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook — the applicant was convicted of robbery on 10 June 2021 and, on 29 November 2021, received an extended sentence of 25 years for that offence, consecutive to sentences for drugs and bladed-article offences.