R v Zafar Iqbal

In an out-of-time criminal appeal, the court must examine all the circumstances, including the length and reasons for delay and the wider interests of justice. Strong merits alone do not secure an extension. The 28-day limit should be strictly observed, and after a delay of about six years an applicant must show at least a compelling case on the merits. For fresh evidence under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court considers whether it is capable of belief and may afford a ground for allowing the appeal, together with admissibility and the explanation for its late production. Evidence that is disbelieved, or would not have affected the verdict, cannot render a conviction unsafe.

The applicant had been convicted at the Crown Court at Leeds in 2015 of sexual activity with a child and attempted rape involving his stepdaughter, and was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. His renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence was dismissed in [2016] EWCA Crim 1324.

In 2022, the applicant sought an extension of more than seven years to apply for permission to appeal his convictions, leave to rely on fresh evidence and permission to amend his grounds. The proposed fresh evidence consisted principally of three text messages sent by the complainant in 2016, followed by her police interview and later statement. The central issues were whether the delay had a reasonable explanation, whether the evidence was capable of belief and whether it could afford a ground for allowing the appeal.

All applications refused. The Court of Appeal refused the extension of time, leave to rely on fresh evidence, permission to amend the grounds and permission to appeal. The convictions were safe.

1. Under section 18(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, an applicant seeking an extension of time must give reasons. The court must examine all the circumstances, including the length and reasons for delay, the overriding objective, finality, the victim’s interests, the practicality of a retrial and any potential injustice to the applicant. The 28-day time limit must be strictly observed unless there are good and exceptional reasons. The longer the delay, the harder it is to justify.
2. Following and applying the approach in Gary Bennett v The King [2023] EWCA Crim 795, an unexplained delay of about six years required at least a compelling case on the merits. There was no reasonable explanation for the periods of delay, including the period when the applicant and his representatives knew of the text messages. The asserted lack of funds was unsupported and did not justify the delay.
3. Under section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court had to consider whether the fresh evidence was capable of belief and might afford a ground for allowing the appeal, as well as the other statutory criteria. The court found that the complainant had sent the messages because of emotional conflict and pressure, not because her trial evidence was false. She had rapidly resiled from the messages, and the later evidence confirmed the truth of her trial account.
4. Even if the evidence had been available to the jury, it would have made no difference. The jury already knew of the complainant’s vulnerabilities and reluctance to implicate the applicant. There was also powerful independent evidence from the applicant’s wife concerning the third offence. The convictions were not even arguably unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The present court refused the extension of time, fresh-evidence application, amendment application and permission to appeal.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence was dismissed in [2016] EWCA Crim 1324.
• Crown Court at Leeds: The applicant was convicted on 1 June 2015 and sentenced on 2 June 2015 to 15 years’ imprisonment.