R v BBZ

A renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction should be refused where the proposed grounds and further material disclose no properly arguable ground casting doubt on the safety of the conviction. Repetition of rejected allegations, disagreement with the single judge’s assessment of fresh evidence, and unrelated allegations do not satisfy that threshold. Ancillary applications for fresh evidence, representation and bail fall away when renewed leave is refused. A loss of time order may be made where an applicant pursues a wholly unmeritorious application after warning and offers no reason against the order. Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 may require anonymisation to protect the alleged victim’s identity.

After a trial at the Crown Court at Lewes, the applicant was convicted of four counts of rape, two counts of indecent assault and two counts of indecency with a child. He was sentenced to 23 years’ imprisonment.

Following refusal by a single judge, he renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction. He also sought a representation order, leave under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to introduce fresh evidence, and bail. His grounds alleged fabrication, deficiencies in representation and matters said to undermine the prosecution case. The central issue was whether the material disclosed any properly arguable ground casting doubt on the safety of the convictions.

Disposition. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The applications for fresh evidence, a representation order and bail therefore fell away.

1. Anonymity. The lifetime prohibition under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applied. Because of the family relationship between the applicant and the victim, the applicant was anonymised to protect the victim’s identity. The order was not made for the applicant’s benefit.
2. Leave to appeal. The court considered afresh the proposed grounds, the applicant’s further letters and submissions, and the material before the single judge. It agreed entirely with the single judge’s reasoning. The applicant had raised no properly arguable ground capable of casting doubt on the safety of any conviction.
3. Fresh evidence and further allegations. The applicant’s disagreement with the single judge’s assessment of the relevance of the proposed fresh evidence did not establish an arguable ground. Much of the new material merely repeated earlier arguments. Unsubstantiated allegations concerning police corruption in an unrelated Scottish matter had no bearing on the application.
4. Loss of time. The applicant had been warned that such an order might be made. The application had already been fully and fairly considered, no representations were made against the order, and the application was wholly unmeritorious. The court directed that 28 days spent in custody as an applicant should not count towards sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1207, the renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. The ancillary applications fell away and 28 days were ordered not to count towards sentence.
• Single judge: Refused the applicant’s applications after considering the proposed grounds and additional representations.
• Crown Court at Lewes: Following trial before Mr Recorder John Hardy and a jury, convicted the applicant on eight counts and sentenced him to 23 years’ imprisonment.