R v NRZ

A lengthy delay in applying for leave to appeal against conviction may justify refusal of an extension where no sufficient explanation is given and the proposed grounds lack merit.

Non-disclosure must have a realistic bearing on the outcome to support an appeal. Alleged failures by trial lawyers to call witnesses do not justify an appeal where the proposed evidence would not materially undermine the prosecution or advance the defence. Fresh-evidence applications require a proper evidential basis, and speculative further-disclosure requests are insufficient.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne of 15 counts of sexual abuse against his daughter. His application for leave to appeal against conviction was 771 days out of time.

A single judge refused an extension of time, finding no sufficient explanation for the delay and no merit in the proposed grounds or fresh-evidence application. The applicant renewed the application before the Court of Appeal. The issues concerned alleged non-disclosure, alleged failures by trial lawyers to call witnesses, proposed evidence about earlier complaints, and further disclosure requests.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the renewed application and refused the extension of time.

1. Delay and merit. The application was 771 days out of time. No good reason or sufficient explanation had been shown for the delay. The proposed grounds and application to adduce fresh evidence also lacked merit.
2. Disclosure. Even if the recorded information from L should have been disclosed, it was not material to the outcome. The trial had not involved any suggestion that the applicant had abused anyone else, and he had received a good-character direction.
3. Trial representation. The alleged failure to call L and two other witnesses did not provide a basis for an appeal. There had been an informal decision not to call them, and the proposed evidence would not have significantly undermined the prosecution or advanced the defence case of denial.
4. Fresh evidence and further disclosure. There was no significant evidential basis for asserting that the complainant’s earlier allegations against two other men were false. The court accepted that an attempt to admit such evidence under CSA 2003 s.100 or YJCEA 1999 s.41 would have failed. The later request for additional material was speculative and unjustified.
5. The applicant’s response to the single judge repeated points already addressed and did not undermine the conclusions. The grounds, individually and cumulatively, were devoid of merit. The renewed application was therefore dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2024] EWCA Crim 93, the renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed.
2. Single judge — Refused the extension of time and rejected the proposed grounds and fresh-evidence application.
3. Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne — Convicted the applicant on 12 October 2020 of 15 counts of sexual abuse.